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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: the board is live, has exactly 2 slots of 12 hours, and includes slot holders and prices. It also explains the meaning of isFree true and connects to claim_free_slot, giving practical behavior beyond annotations.

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, no filler. The core board structure and contents are front-loaded, and the note about claim_free_slot is placed as an actionable follow-up. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it explains what the board shows, how slots are organized, what isFree means, and the associated claiming action. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently describes the returned information.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly focuses on what the board contains rather than inputs. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the current board'), then explains exactly what the board contains: 2 slots a day of 12 hours each, showing held status, holder, price, and availability. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_stats or list_winners.

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 description clearly implies when to use get_board: to inspect the live advertising board and slot availability. It also points to claim_free_slot when a slot is free, which helps an agent decide next action. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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