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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value annotations cannot: the meaning of the column tipo enum (BACKLOG = entrada, DONE = concluído) and that "padrao" flags the default board — key interpretive context for the returned data, with no output schema to carry it.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the data shape and enum meanings, then the consumption targets. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the fields (id, nome, tipo) and their values. It omits ordering or whether archived boards/templates are included, a minor remaining gap for a listing tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids restating a nonexistent input surface.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ("Lista os quadros KANBAN de tarefas do escritório no Astrea") and immediately scopes the payload ("com as colunas de cada um"). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like astrea_tarefas_listar, which lists tasks rather than boards.

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 tells the agent where the returned ids are consumed: kanban_id/column_id in astrea_tarefa_criar and column_id in astrea_tarefa_mover — a clear downstream-usage rule. It stops short of stating when this tool should be preferred over other lookups or any prerequisites, so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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