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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses the identity prerequisite (private board token from create/join, no account), a rate-limit expectation (poll_after_seconds), a scoping guarantee (private work only for your own active memberships), and a trust warning that task content is untrusted. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before calling.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource list leads and constraints follow. Slightly choppy as a series of clipped fragments, but nothing wastes space.

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?

Covers auth, scoping, rate limiting, and trust, which is most of what an agent needs for a read-only list call with no required parameters and no output schema. The remaining gap is pagination and filter semantics, which the agent cannot infer from a 20%-covered schema.

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 20%, so the description must compensate, but it only references identity_token (already documented in the schema) and says nothing about limit, cursor pagination, swarm_id scoping, or what the active/offers/review/done filter values select. The most consequential parameter, filter, is left entirely unexplained.

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 a well-defined resource set: assigned offers, active claims, and claimable tasks in joined swarms, plus versions and next actions. It is distinguishable from board-oriented siblings like get_board_inbox, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'One small call for a worker's next step' and 'Respect poll_after_seconds' imply a polling/refresh usage pattern. However, it never says when to prefer this over find_next_board_action or get_board_inbox, or what to use when the worker wants a full board history.

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