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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds critical behavioral context beyond that: it returns the whole agency's boards (not one agent's), requires an agency API key, only ever exposes the calling agency's data, and stage names are custom so they must be read from the reply. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent avoid misinterpreting results.

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?

The description is longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence earns its place – there is no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the structure (scope → usage → alternatives → behavior) is logical. It loses a point only for not being as tight as the two-sentence ideal.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and three optional parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: what is returned (board names, stage counts, cards), ordering, scoping to the calling agency, authentication, and alternatives. An agent has everything it needs to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches every parameter. It clarifies that limit only caps cards per stage while counts are full totals, that stage matching is case-insensitive and can target closed stages by name, and that omitting pipeline yields a summary. These are non-obvious behaviors that materially change how an agent should set parameters.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('List the cards on YOUR agency's CRM pipeline boards') and enumerates the exact boards, making the tool's function immediately unambiguous. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling my_leads, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

Usage is spelled out: call with no pipeline for a per-board summary, with a pipeline for a specific board's cards, and 'newest activity first' is noted. The description explicitly routes to my_leads for unworked enquiries, giving a clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use.

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