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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds real value: it enumerates the return fields (id, editToken, ownerUrl, shopUrl, wishlist, storage) and warns that editToken must be retained for add_desk_item. It does not state whether an empty board is valid, or what auth/limits apply, so it is not complete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then return values, then the routing hint. Telegraphic phrasing ('OpenAPI: createWishlist') is slightly cryptic but costs no 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?

With no output schema, listing the return fields is the right compensatory move and it does so. However, for a seven-parameter create tool with 29% schema coverage and no annotations covering behavior beyond mutation, the description leaves too much of the input contract unexplained to be considered complete.

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 29%, so the description needs to compensate — instead it mentions no parameters at all beyond the passing notion of a board. The seven inputs (role, items, locale, deskName, budgetBand, personName, marketplace) are undocumented here, and the schema leaves six of them unexplained. This is a clear gap given the low coverage.

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 — 'Create a home-office desk board (wishlist)' — and even reconciles the internal naming by equating desk board with wishlist. It names the sibling create_and_fill so the agent can distinguish this from the one-shot variant without opening another schema.

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?

'Prefer create_and_fill for one-shot' gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it, and 'Save editToken for add_desk_item' implies the multi-step workflow this tool is for. It stops short of saying when you would create a board with no follow-up, but the usage signal is clear.

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