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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: typed row returns, pagination, explicit sync/coverage limits, the caveat that older syncs may lack structured columns, and the no-SQL constraint. It stops short of describing pagination mechanics or what the coverage limits look like in practice.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then field syntax, then return behavior, then caveats. Every sentence carries information; the only minor inefficiency is that return-shape details are partly redundant with the output schema.

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 9-parameter, fully optional query tool, the description covers field syntax and aggregation but omits the meaning of board_id, cursor, and limit constraints. The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, and the sync/coverage caveat is a useful completeness touch, but parameter-level gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 9 parameters, the description carries the burden and partially meets it by defining the field-reference convention (base identifiers or column:<stored-column-id>), which is essential for filters, sort, fields, and group_by. It also constrains filters to scalar and aggregation to count/sum. But it says nothing about limit bounds, cursor semantics, board_id, or the view enum, leaving several parameters documented only by raw schema shape.

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: query the approved synced Monday item view, with named capabilities (scalar filters, sorting, grouping, count/sum aggregation). The resource is distinct enough from siblings like search, fetch, or get_entity_context that an agent can route without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scoping language ("approved synced Monday item view") and by the constraint "Never accepts SQL", which rules out an approach an agent might otherwise attempt. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search, fetch, or get_entity_context, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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