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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly does not repeat those. It adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it always includes filtered lists and 'present every option, never auto-pick,' explains that batch parameters apply only to display_values, and details the exact column types surfaced. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 longer than a simple sentence but every section earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses bullet-like lists to explain include options and the always-present filtered lists. The structure is clear and scannable, though a few phrases like 'Always includes filtered lists' could be tightened without losing value.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and 0% schema parameter descriptions, the description carries a heavy burden. It covers the main usage (item_id vs board_id), include combinations, batching behavior, and the filtered lists that always appear. It does not address error conditions or exact response formatting, but for a read-only fetch tool with strong annotations, the provided details are sufficient for an agent to call 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 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains item_id and board_id ('Pass item_id, or board_id to inspect the first item on that board'), details the include array options and their combinations, and clarifies that batch_number/batch_size apply only to display_values. All five parameters receive meaningful semantics, filling the schema gap entirely.

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: 'Fetch a Monday item (or the first item on a board) for GetSign setup.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other GetSign operations (e.g., sending requests, generating documents). It also enumerates the exact return content (item, board columns, subitems, display values, filtered lists), leaving no ambiguity about purpose.

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 gives clear context on when to pass item_id vs board_id and explains the include options and their combinations. It also specifies that batch_number/batch_size only apply to display_values. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternative siblings or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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