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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: 'Needs view perm' (authorization) and 'scope=all: whole board (costly)' (performance/cost). No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only board context'. No wasted words, but the cryptic 'raw TOON' could be clearer. Structure is logical: purpose, defaults, permission.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core usage (defaults, scope, permissions) but omits details for selectedConnectionIds and currentPageId. It also doesn't describe response structure, but output schema is absent so that's less critical. Overall adequate but with gaps.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains scope (defaults, scope=all), pageId, and selectedElementIds, but does not clarify currentPageId, selectedConnectionIds, or spaceId. Also, it mentions 'pageIndex' which is not a parameter, causing confusion. Partial compensation.

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 description states it reads board context, a clear resource and action. However, the phrase 'raw TOON' is ambiguous and not explained, which slightly detracts from clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_nodes by focusing on overall state.

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?

Provides clear guidance on default behavior (current page + pageIndex), how to get other pages via pageId, and the costly scope=all option. It also notes the view permission prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or mention when not to use it.

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