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

With readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false already in annotations, the description adds valuable context: the checks are deterministic, findings are advisory and not errors, a board with findings may be exactly what the user wants, and a Pro or trial workspace is required. It also sets expectations about not looping. No contradiction with annotations.

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 earns its place: purpose, specific checks, advisory interpretation, usage guidance, and license requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary action and has no filler.

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?

This is a one-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description covers the checks performed, advisory nature, usage timing, and workspace requirement. The only gap is that it does not explicitly describe the return format, but for a deterministic review tool with simple input, this is a minor omission.

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% because the only parameter, 'id', has a full description in the schema. The tool description does not add detail about the parameter itself, but it doesn't need to; the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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: 'Run deterministic quality checks on a whiteboard', then enumerates concrete checks (text overflow, overlapping elements, unbound connectors, palette violations, off-grid positions, orphaned elements). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_whiteboard, which fetches state, and list_whiteboards, which lists boards.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Use after drawing to sanity-check') and gives strong behavioral guidance ('fix at most once, and do not loop chasing an empty report'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the advisory framing and placement guidance provide clear enough context.

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