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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that the API key belongs to the agency rather than a person, that results are always scoped to the calling agency's own data, that stage names are dynamic and must be read from the reply, and that board cards are ordered by newest activity. These are meaningful behavioral details the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Every sentence delivers a distinct piece of value: the action, the board/card types, the dynamic stage-name warning, the two call patterns, the sibling distinction, and the agency-level permission scope. It is thorough without being padded.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description covers the essential return semantics: board stage names, card counts, board-specific card lists, and summaries. It also explains sort order and treats previously worked-but-unworked leads, giving the agent enough context to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema already documents all 3 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is met. The description adds extra parameter-related semantics: omitting `pipeline` produces an all-boards summary, supplying a pipeline returns that board's cards in newest-activity order, and counts are full stage totals regardless of the limit.

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 opening sentence is a specific verb+resource statement: it lists cards on a named resource, 'your agency's CRM pipeline boards,' and clarifies card types by board. It explicitly contrasts with my_leads by calling itself 'the board view,' so an agent can disambiguate it from siblings.

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?

The description gives explicit call patterns: 'Call with no pipeline for a summary of every board' and 'Call with a pipeline for that board's cards, newest activity first.' It also names a concrete alternative—'For enquiries that have just arrived and have not been worked yet, use my_leads'—so the when-to-use decision is explicit.

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