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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-annotation context: sort order, the exact returned fields, the recursive-subfolder behavior of folder mode, and an explicit warning that titles and folder names are user-authored data — a genuine injection-risk signal. It stops short of stating pagination beyond the schema's limit cap.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and default ordering front-loaded before the folder-mode caveat. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so enumerating returned fields (id, title, folder, link, element count, then folders) is exactly the missing piece the description supplies. Both the unscoped and folder-scoped behaviors are covered, and the user-authored-data caveat closes the loop for a low-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented at length, including the '/' top-level convention and the 1–100 limit range. The description restates the folder semantics ('one folder, its subfolders') without adding format or edge-case detail the schema doesn't already carry, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists Excalidraw whiteboards'), names the owning scope ('owned by the signed-in static.md user'), and adds ordering ('most recently edited first'). It is clearly separable from list_my_notes and read_board, which an agent can distinguish without opening any schema.

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?

Distinguishes the two invocation modes: no folder = all boards, with folder = that folder's direct children plus its subfolders. It gives clear context for each mode but never names an alternative tool or an exclusion (e.g. use read_board to get elements, or list_my_notes for notes).

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