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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the paging contract (pass next_skip as skip), the return envelope, and the fact that it maps to GET /task-boards. It doesn't discuss result sizes or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition before paging and filtering mechanics. Nearly every sentence earns its place; the 'GET /task-boards' fragment and the slightly elliptical opening cost it a point.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and a nested filters object, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, how to page, how to read one record, and the two filtering modes. It would be complete at 5 with a note on how query and filters combine or which fields are commonly filtered.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including the skip/next_skip loop and the query syntax. The description reinforces the paging usage and points at `id` for single-record reads, but adds no new syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and adds domain context ('A project has one or more boards that hold tasks'), which distinguishes it from siblings like plutio_list_tasks and plutio_list_task_groups. The verb is only implied by the resource phrase rather than stated outright, but the return-shape sentence ('Returns { count, next_skip, items }') makes the list semantics unambiguous.

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 gives operational guidance ('Pass id to read one record', filter via exact-match or MongoDB-style query) but never states when to prefer this tool over plutio_list_tasks, plutio_list_projects, or plutio_list_task_groups. Usage is implied by the projectId parameter and the board/task hierarchy sentence, not explicitly routed.

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