Look at images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description repeats 'Read-only' only briefly. It adds real behavioral value the annotations don't carry: return format (image content preceded by id, position, size), ordering (top-to-bottom then left-to-right), and the pagination/continuation behavior. It stops short of noting size limits or content-type caveats, so not a full 5.

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 dense paragraph, but the core purpose is front-loaded and the ordering/limit/continuation facts follow logically. No filler sentences; the density is slightly harder to scan than a bulleted form but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's job includes explaining returns — which it does (image content plus id, position, size, in reading order) along with truncation behavior. Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the interaction between items and limit (no ids → first N in reading order) and the origin of item ids (from read_board). This connects the two parameters into a workflow rather than restating field text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('See the images placed on a board'), enumerates the content types it covers, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling read_board ('read_board only lists them'). An agent can distinguish this from read_board and list_boards without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: use read_board to enumerate, this tool to actually see images; pass item ids from read_board for targeted viewing, or omit them to get the first N in reading order. It also explains the follow-up pattern when the limit is hit (remaining ids are reported so they can be requested next call).

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