pipedrive_get_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds the beta status of the API, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., what if ID is invalid) or rate limits, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence is the main purpose; the second is a brief context note. It could be slightly more compact (e.g., merging the parenthetical), but it's efficient overall.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its use. It identifies the board ID requirement and the beta status. Missing details like expected output structure are partially mitigated by the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 covers 100% of parameters (id with description 'The board ID'). The description does not add any new information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get detailed information' and the resource 'specific project board by ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like pipedrive_list_boards (which returns a list) and pipedrive_create_board (which creates). The parenthetical about the Projects add-on and beta status adds context that helps differentiate this tool from other 'get' tools (e.g., pipedrive_get_project).

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 implies usage when you need detailed info on a single board by ID, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like pipedrive_get_project (which gets a project, not a board) or when not to use it. It lacks when-to-use/when-not advice. The sibling list is large, so more guidance would be helpful.

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