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 modest behavioral context by saying the output contains ids and titles, but it does not address pagination, ordering, or nesting behavior; with annotations carrying the safety weight this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence front-loads the action and resource, then gives the output fields and purpose. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 low-complexity read-only list with one required parameter, the description plus schema gives an agent the call shape, the output fields, and the use case. It does not specify pagination or size limits, but nothing in the annotations or output schema suggests those are required to invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Parent document ID', so the description need not repeat parameter details. The description contributes only the whiteboard context, matching the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 the specific verb 'List', the target resource ('canvases (nodes) of a whiteboard'), and the returned fields ('ids and titles'), ending with the intended use ('to find where something lives'). This makes the tool's job unmistakable and differentiates it from single-node operations like node_get.

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 phrase 'to find where something lives' gives a clear discovery use case, so an agent can infer when listing is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as node_get or document_list, nor does it mention exclusions.

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