miro_search_board

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

The description adds useful behavioral context: search is case-insensitive. Annotations already indicate read-only. No contradictions. While it doesn't detail limits or errors, the added voice-friendly example and case-insensitivity are helpful beyond annotations.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences plus a usage block and voice-friendly example. No wasted words, well-structured with clear sections.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral context, and provides examples. It is complete for a search tool with good sibling distinction.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add significant new semantic details beyond what the schema provides, making the contribution marginal.

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?

Clearly states the action (search), resource (items on a board), and distinguishes from sibling tool miro_list_items for listing without search. The description is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use examples ('find items about X', 'search for budget') and an explicit alternative for non-search listing. Also includes a voice-friendly output example, guiding the agent on expected response format.

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