List Boardroom ideas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: tenant scoping and the scoring formula (upvotes minus downvotes) behind the sort order, which the agent cannot know otherwise. It omits pagination/return-shape details.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource, sort order, and required parameter front-loaded. 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 and 0% parameter description coverage put the burden on the description. It covers the required param and status filter plus sort semantics, but omits the limit parameter and any indication of result shape or pagination, leaving clear gaps for a list 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers agent_id (required) and the status filter, but the limit parameter (default 50, max 200) is never mentioned, leaving a third of the parameters unexplained.

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 (Returns) and resource (ideas), scoped to 'this tenant', with the ordering rule spelled out as score desc (upvotes minus downvotes). An agent can distinguish it from create_idea/update_idea/vote_on_idea without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

'Optionally filtered by status' implies a filtering use case and the sorting behavior hints at use for reviewing top ideas, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative. Usage is only implied.

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