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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden well: it says the board is rendered column by column with tasks, estimate, actual and overdue counts, then board totals and remaining open estimate, plus the default selection rule. The annotations add little (readOnlyHint is false, destructiveHint false), so this output-level disclosure is the main behavioural value, though nothing is said about error behaviour or empty boards.

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 the resource and its output shape, followed by the default and the alternative-tool pointer. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this is nearly complete: it explains what is displayed, in what order, and how the board is chosen when the parameter is omitted. Only edge-case behaviour (unknown project, empty board) is left unstated.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the description only restates the default ("your busiest one") already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since it adds no new format, matching, or ID semantics beyond the schema.

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?

"Show one board column by column" names a specific verb and resource and immediately enumerates the content returned (tasks, estimate, actual, overdue count per column, then totals and open estimate). It also distinguishes itself from project_list, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either 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?

"Use project_list for every board" explicitly routes the agent to the sibling that covers the multi-board case, and "Defaults to your busiest board" clarifies the no-argument behaviour. It stops short of stating any precondition (e.g. what happens with zero boards or an unknown project), so it is clear but not fully closed.

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