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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description then adds ordering ('oldest first') and, importantly, the permission-dependent behavior that fromDetail/toDetail are omitted for boards you can't see. It does not mention pagination or result limits, keeping it short of full disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: purpose and scope first, usage motivation second, non-obvious field encoding third. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the return shape, the description supplies the remaining unknowns — ordering and the <projectId>:<columnKey> encoding of moved_board fields. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single card_id is already documented as a card UUID. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies; the rich field detail it does provide concerns event payloads, not inputs.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get a card's activity log') and enumerates exactly which events it covers (column moves, board moves, priority changes, assignee changes), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_board_activity or get_card_detail.

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?

Gives a clear use case — 'answering when something moved or who changed it' — which frames the question this tool answers. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_board_activity), so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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