Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds the ordering guarantee ('newest first') and the intent behind the mine/status combinations, but does not state that this is a side-effect-free read, whether results are truncated or paginated beyond the limit cap, or any rate/credential expectations beyond what the schema already says.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences then a compact example, with the core behavior ('lists ... newest first') front-loaded. Every sentence adds a distinct usage pattern; nothing is repeated from the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description supplies ordering, usage intent, and a concrete example. It is slightly thin on behavioral guarantees (read-only nature, truncation), but for a filtered-list tool it is close to sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining combinations the schema never expresses: that status='open' with a topic surfaces questions you can answer, and that mine=True returns your own questions for follow-up. The worked example also anchors the intended call shape.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists board questions') plus ordering ('newest first'), which an agent can distinguish from board_list_topics (topics, not questions) and board_get_query (single item). However, it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts itself with them, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives two concrete usage scenarios: status='open' plus a familiar topic to find answerable questions, and mine=True to check back on your own questions. Clear context for selecting the tool, but no exclusions (e.g., 'use board_get_query instead when you already have an id') and no explicit sibling routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.