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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context on top: aggregation counts come first, only non-terminal items are returned, and each item carries last touch and open next action. It also hints at scale behavior on long boards, which is useful for deciding whether to filter. It stops short of pagination or ordering details, but with annotations present that is a minor gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the output shape is front-loaded before the filtering advice. The opening "The board:" is terse to the point of being opaque, which costs a point.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so concisely (counts, then item fields). For a single-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing essential is missing, though a note on whether count rows are affected by the status filter would help.

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 100% and the schema description already explains the status filter, including the special "skipped" value. The description only restates "filter by status" plus a heuristic for when to use it, so it adds marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 board" is jargon and there is no explicit verb, but the sentence does spell out what the payload contains: per-stage counts followed by every non-terminal item with stage, last touch, and open next action. That is specific enough to distinguish it as a read-only pipeline overview rather than a mutation or a single-record getter, though it never names the sibling it differs from (e.g. crm_pipeline, hunt_due).

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?

"On a long board, filter by status" gives one situational cue for the optional parameter, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over hunt_due, hunt_contacts, or crm_pipeline, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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