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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with them. Going beyond annotations, it discloses that only active lists are returned, they are in display order, and the backlog is included with an empty-string id, which is useful edge-case context.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action and purpose first, then the critical return details Ø. Every sentence adds relevant information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it explains why to use it, what it returns, the list ordering, and the special backlog entry. With no output schema, the return-value details are sufficient for an agent to use 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 schema already documents project_id with 100% coverageebb, so the description does not need to add much. The description refers to 'a project's kanban board' but does not elaborate on the project_id format or additional constraints beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'List the lists of a project's kanban board.' It further specifies the exact purpose, resolving a valid move_card destination, and the return contents, which distinguishes it from other list_* 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 clearly frames the tool as a prerequisite for move_card by stating its output is 'usable as a move_card target.' This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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