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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: results are computed on the fly (not cached), the borrowed-board result set is governed by board permission rather than workspace membership, foreign-task output is trimmed (no recap source, only name/type/color for Atlas entities), and private tasks are always excluded. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the most important insight (computed vs. stored list) and each subsequent sentence contributes concrete behavioral detail. Slightly dense with the trimming/permission clauses, but every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the shape of trimmed results and the evaluation semantics. For a read-only tool this is nearly complete, though a note on result volume/ordering would close the remaining gap.

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 board_id, workspace_id and incluir_cerradas are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (ver/obtener) and resource (tareas dentro de un tablero), and crucially clarifies that it is a live-evaluated, rule-resolved view rather than a stored list. This scoping to a board distinguishes it from the general get_tasks / get_declared_tasks, but it never names a sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool applies: own board (private or shared) and boards borrowed from another person, with an explanation of how the set is decided in the borrowed case. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to the alternative task-listing tools.

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