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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the full scope of board data, including full point lists for drawings, and the important limitation that rendered images omit groups and links. This goes beyond static annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration of returned elements, and the key caveat about groups/links is placed last for emphasis. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the return structure is already defined. The description covers what makes this tool unique, what data it returns, and the critical limitation of the rendered image. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single required parameter projectId is already documented as 'Project id (uuid).' The description does not add new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('a project's board') and enumerates the exact contents returned (card positions, sticky notes, drawings, images, groups, links, updatedAt). It distinguishes itself from the related get_board_image tool by stating groups and links are only visible here.

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 positions this tool as 'the only way to see groups and links' and contrasts it with the rendered board image, which does not draw them. This gives the agent a clear decision rule for when to prefer this tool over the image alternative.

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