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

The annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add beyond that. It does: the payload-slimming behavior (elements + appState stripped) and the PRO+ entitlement gate are non-obvious traits an agent would otherwise not know.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded, then the payload caveat, the alternative tool, and the gating constraint in descending order of importance. 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?

For a zero-required-param list tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers scope, payload trimming, the alternative tool, and entitlements. The remaining gap is pagination/cursor behavior and the projectId/proposalId relationship, which is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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 only 25% (only limit is documented), so the description carries some burden. It frames the two scoping parameters as 'project or proposal scope', implying an either/or selector, but never states whether projectId/proposalId are mutually exclusive or required, nor what cursor means. Partial compensation only.

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 ('List whiteboards') plus the scope ('project or proposal'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_whiteboard by noting that elements + appState are omitted. An agent can tell instantly what this returns and how it differs from the sibling that fetches a full whiteboard.

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 two clear routing signals: use this for lightweight listing, and use get_whiteboard when full element/appState data is needed; also flags the PRO+ plan gate. It stops short of explicit guidance on when to choose projectId vs proposalId or when to paginate, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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