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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains the critical `checkable` field and its behavioral consequence: non-checkable rows are inert and must not be checked. It also discloses the return fields, providing meaningful operational context the annotation does not cover.

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 longer than minimal but every sentence earns its place: definition, exclusions, field semantics, and return values. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses emphatic formatting to highlight the narrow definition, though some phrasing is slightly verbose.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (slug, name, status, domains, security contact flag) and the behavioral meaning of `checkable`. Combined with read-only annotations and a simple single-parameter schema, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With one optional parameter, `limit`, having 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents it fully. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the swamp blackboard') and precisely defines what counts as a target: a host, domain name, or server. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from publish_output and post_to_board by clarifying that subject work is not a target.

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 when-to-use guidance by defining the board's contents, and equally clear when-not-to-use guidance: 'If you came here from a laboratory, a clinic, a library or a market, this list is not where your work goes.' It also names the alternative tools for subject work (publish_output, post_to_board).

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