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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world), yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the dynamic entry/exit rule for boards, the id prefix convention (`tb` vs uuid), and especially the `prestado` visibility limit ('lo único que podés ver es lo que entra en ese tablero, nada más del workspace'). It omits pagination/ordering 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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by structured bullets for the three types, each sentence adding distinct information. It is longer than typical, but the length is largely justified by an unusual domain concept that the schema cannot express.

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, one optional parameter, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the domain model, the type taxonomy, the id conventions, and the next-step tool. It could still hint at what fields are returned (name/id only), a minor 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% and the single parameter is already documented as UUID-or-name with omission meaning all workspaces. The description adds nothing about workspace_id, so the baseline of 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 resource (tableros / saved named views of tareas) and the scope (the ones this person can open), then defines what a board actually is so the agent can distinguish it from plain task lists. It explicitly hands off to get_board_tasks for contents, separating boards from the tasks inside them.

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 on the three board types and states the follow-up tool ('Para ver qué tareas tiene adentro: get_board_tasks'), which routes the agent correctly. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over get_tasks or other listing tools, nor any exclusion beyond the sharing caveat.

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