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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: sections are returned with total_count, results are capped at limit, summaries are ready for get_card / move_card / update_card, and a Pro or trial workspace is required. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, then kind definitions, then filters, then output shape, then access requirement. Every sentence contributes necessary information and no filler is present.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return shape, and it does: per-section summaries, capping at limit, and total_count. It also covers default behavior, filter values, downstream tool compatibility, and workspace entitlement, so an agent has enough to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavior of 'kind' ('all' returns every list as its own section), the per-section meaning of 'limit', and the literal 'unassigned' value for assignee_id. This goes beyond the schema's standalone descriptions without being redundant.

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 and resource: 'List the cards needing attention on a project's kanban board.' It clearly defines the three list kinds ('stuck', 'blocking', 'overdue') and distinguishes the tool from generic listing siblings by tying it to the product's Metrics pages. An agent can infer exactly what this tool returns and how it differs from list_cards or search_cards.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need attention lists on a project board, with explicit semantics for each kind and optional assignee filtering. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the purpose is specific enough that misuse against siblings like list_cards is unlikely.

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