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

Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral nuance beyond that: board display order (placement position descending), unknown-uid-matches-nothing semantics, inclusive due_date behavior, and the updated_since caveat that collection edits may not bump change time. That caveat is genuinely useful context an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

One dense paragraph, but front-loaded with purpose, scope and ordering before filters and return shape. Every clause carries information; it is long only because the tool is genuinely rich, though it could be broken into shorter sentences.

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 10-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope resolution, filter composition, ordering, pagination and the summary fields returned, so an agent has everything needed to call and consume it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: filters combine with AND, uid filters silently match nothing when unknown, and pagination semantics (limit default 50/max 100, offset, total_count as full filtered count). This exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

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 precise verb+resource ('List the cards of one kanban list'), including the fallback scope (project backlog when list_id is omitted/empty) and the ordering rule. An agent can distinguish it from search_cards and get_epic without opening either schema.

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?

Explains when the backlog branch applies, how filters combine (AND), and routes cross-list epic queries to get_epic. It gives clear context for use but never explicitly contrasts against the closest sibling, search_cards.

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