get_board_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no credentials are required, that results are computed at most every 10 seconds, and what one key field means for downstream sponsor_swap behavior. It does not explicitly describe side effects, but the counts framing strongly implies a read-only status operation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, access requirement, returned fields, key interpretation, and freshness. Every clause adds useful information without repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return values, and it lists the fields and clarifies the important ones such as sponsorsReady and asOf freshness. It does not specify field types or the exact response envelope, but it is otherwise complete for a simple status tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4 according to the rules. The description focuses instead on return fields, which is appropriate for a parameterless status tool.

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 and resource: it returns counts for the server's offer board and sponsors. It also lists the exact metrics returned, so an agent can distinguish this status-reading tool from siblings like list_swap_offers, take_swap_offer, or sponsor_swap.

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 provides clear context for use: no credentials are needed, and a sponsorsReady value of 0 means a sponsor_swap would wait or fail now. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the readiness signal gives practical guidance.

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