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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: the ownership/agent-key precondition and the concrete 403 not_owner_agent failure mode, which an agent cannot derive from annotations or schema.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with purpose, then the return shape, then scope, then the failure condition, with no filler sentences. Every clause, including the return-shape sketch, carries information.

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 an output schema present the description need not fully explain return values, yet it still previews the card fields, and it covers the access precondition and enum scopes. The remaining gap is the lack of differentiation from the sibling `task` tool for a board-based read operation.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds real meaning for one enum value ('mine (assigned to or picked by this agent)'), but leaves the distinction between 'mine' and 'assigned' and the meaning of 'open' unexplained.

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 verb and resource ('Lists cards of the account task board (Kanban)') and narrows the audience (the call owner's board, viewed by an agent the owner brought in). It never names the sibling `task` tool explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary between listing cards and the singular task tool, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied through the scope enumeration and the access precondition ('Agents of guests get 403 not_owner_agent'), which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over `task`, `activity`, or `decisions`, and no when-not guidance beyond the 403 case.

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