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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields (id, title, status, meeting attachment, creator, last-modified), which matters because there is no output schema. No pagination or result-size behavior is mentioned, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, and the alternative-tool routing comes last where it belongs. The parenthetical gloss on whiteboards costs some words, but it is justified disambiguation for a term an agent could otherwise confuse with documents or meetings.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields and enum values; with only two optional filters fully documented in the schema, nothing is left unexplained. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns an extra point by restating the allowed status values ('draft', 'active', or 'filed') and framing meeting_id as 'find the board a specific meeting used', which conveys the lookup intent better than the schema's bare 'Only boards attached to this meeting'.

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 the organization's whiteboards') and defines the object as shared visual canvases, which disambiguates it from meetings, issues, or docs. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read_whiteboard by scope (index vs. content).

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?

Explicitly names the alternative: 'This is the index only; use read_whiteboard to see what is written on a board,' and states the two filtering paths an agent can take (status, meeting_id). No inference required to pick the right tool.

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