board_advice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the tool merely recommends deprioritization (as the name 'advice' suggests) or actually mutates board state, nor does it mention permissions, thresholds, or side effects. The 'paid=0' condition is the only behavioral hint.

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?

A single compact sentence with the selection criterion front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description omits essential context: what a 'board' is, what 'enough leads' means, and how this relates to 'pause_weak_boards' or 'rate_advice'. For a no-argument advisory tool sitting among many similar siblings, more routing and threshold context is needed.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter-level meaning is required.

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 pairs a verb ('Deprioritize') with a resource ('boards') and a condition ('paid=0 and enough leads'), so the general intent is discernible. However, it never defines what a 'board' is or whether this is advisory-only or an actual state change, which matters given the name 'board_advice' conflicts with the imperative 'Deprioritize'. It is not clearly distinguishable from the sibling 'pause_weak_boards'.

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 indication of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. The sibling 'pause_weak_boards' appears closely related, yet the description offers no guidance on which to choose or in what sequence.

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