Read Frantic board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value beyond annotations by specifying the resolved structuredContent shape: ok, channel, board, actions, and feed, plus key fields like price_usd, work_status, and claim_slots. It also points to needed follow-up action with get_bounty.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then compactly enumerates the returned content. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does a good job summarizing the shape and important fields, and it gives the follow-up action for artifact requirements. It could have also clarified pagination or what 'projection' means, but for a zero-parameter read-only board list this level of detail is nearly sufficient.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing meaningful to describe beyond schema coverage.

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?

Names a specific operation and resource: 'Read the public Frantic board projection.' The description also details the main content (open_bounties/bounties, feed) and clarifies it is different from other read tools like frantic.read_ledger or frantic.get_bounty by describing a board-level view.

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?

Clearly implies the board is the right starting point for browsing the public board, and adds an explicit workflow pointer: 'Call frantic.get_bounty for required_artifacts before delivery.' It does not explicitly state when to prefer read_board over read_ledger, but the context is clear enough for an agent to pick it correctly.

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