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

Annotations provide no safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint are all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output contents, the column-by-column format, and the default board selection. It does not explicitly discuss side effects or error behavior, but its 'Show' framing describes a presentation operation.

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?

Two tight sentences cover the action, the output layout, the default, and the sibling alternative. There is no filler, and the most important behavioral information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is shown, the output arrangement, the default, and the routing to project_list. Minor ambiguity around phrases like 'estimate still open' and what exactly counts as overdue keeps it from being fully 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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter, project, including the fact that it defaults to the busiest board. The description repeats that default but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Show'), a specific resource ('one board'), and the exact output structure (columns with tasks, estimate, actual, overdue counts, totals, and estimate still open). It also distinguishes itself from project_list by saying that project_list is the way to get every board.

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?

It explicitly states the default behavior when no board is chosen ('Defaults to your busiest board') and gives a clear alternative for a different need ('Use project_list for every board'). This is concrete when-to-use versus when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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