pipedrive_list_boards

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the endpoint returns all boards without pagination, and notes the dependency on the Projects add-on and that the API is in public beta. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value (action, no pagination, beta note). Zero waste.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, pagination behavior, and add-on/beta status. It could mention the return format or fields, but this is not required as no output schema exists. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this 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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is consistent with that.

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 explicitly states 'List all project boards', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'no pagination' and that it returns all records at once, which differentiates it from tools like pipedrive_get_board (single board) and pipedrive_list_projects (projects, not boards).

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 clearly states when to use this tool: to list all boards with no pagination. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, the context is clear enough given the sibling tool names (e.g., pipedrive_get_board for a single board). Occasional guidance on filtering could be added but is not necessary.

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