brand_boards_get_brand_board_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. However, the description adds no behavioral context – it does not state what is returned, whether additional data is included, or any edge cases. Given the annotations, a description could add value by explaining the retrieval scope, but this one is purely generic.

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 extremely terse ('Get Brand Board') but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It omits critical context (like the ID requirement) and does not provide enough information to be called concise in a meaningful way. It is a single phrase with no elaboration.

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 only two parameters and full schema coverage, the tool is not complex, but the description still fails to explain the key differentiator (retrieval by ID) or any practical context. An agent would need to rely on the name and schema to understand what makes this tool unique, which is inadequate.

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 `id` and `locationId` have descriptive text. The description offers no additional meaning about the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 says 'Get Brand Board' which names a verb and resource, but it does not specify that this retrieves a single brand board by its ID. This makes it indistinguishable from sibling tools like brand_boards_get_brand_boards_by_location, which also get brand boards. The name contains 'by_id', but the description does not reinforce that nuance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the location-based retrieval. No mention of the required `id` parameter or any context about scenarios where this is appropriate. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the schema.

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