board_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs prefix, case sensitivity), what a result row contains (board name, ID, MCU, package), or how limit truncates. Only the implicit read-only nature can be inferred from 'Search'.

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 sentence with the action and scoping detail front-loaded; every clause (board families, name fragment) earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials to invoke it, but leaves the return shape and match behavior unspecified. Adequate but with visible gaps an agent would hit on first use.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters ('Board name fragment', 'Max rows'). The description's phrase 'by name fragment' merely reinforces the existing query semantics without adding matching rules or formatting guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Search ST boards ... by name fragment', with the board families (NUCLEO/DISCO/EVAL) scoping what a 'board' is. It doesn't name the obvious sibling (board_list) to explain when a search beats a listing, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'fragment' – an agent can infer this is the lookup tool when it has a partial name rather than wanting the full catalog (board_list). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named.

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