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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context: the board represents 'live' soft locks, returns active claims with agent/target/subtask/expiration, and emphasizes that it is read-only. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the optional filter and return fields. The final 'Read only.' is redundant with the annotations but harmless; otherwise 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, this description is complete: it explains the purpose, states the optional filter, and describes the returned claim fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%: both limit and target already have meaningful descriptions, including the default and max for limit. The description reinforces that target filters by slug, but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read'), names the resource ('live task board'), and defines its exact scope: soft locks agents currently hold on targets. It also names the returned fields, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like claim_target and list_my_claims.

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 gives clear contextual guidance by explaining why to read the board ('so the swamp doesn't duplicate work'), which implies using it before claiming targets. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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