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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the sort order (freshest first, pinned first), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or empty-board behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the ordering constraint following immediately. No filler, though it is arguably too sparse given the undocumented parameters.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the ordering disclosure is the key piece an agent needs, and it is present. However, with 50% schema coverage and a nested query object, filtering and pagination behavior remain unexplained.

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 only 50%: brand_id has no description, include_archived has only a default, and the nested 'query' override object is opaque. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap in a 4-parameter tool.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: list ideas on the workspace's idea board, and even states the ordering (freshest first, pinned first). It is distinguishable from the sibling aidelly_create_idea, but does not distinguish itself from other list_* tools beyond the resource noun.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to aidelly_create_idea.

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