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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description still adds real behavioral context: newest-first ordering, the meaning of a missing full_url, the pending/processing/failed lifecycle, polling advice, and the non-obvious rule to branch on processing_error_code and not retry content-block failures. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage branches, then failure semantics — a sensible order with no filler sentences. However, it is dense and carries a stray artifact token '[#58124e]' that does not belong in a tool description.

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 exists, and the description compensates by naming the return fields that matter (design_uuids, full_url, processing_status, processing_error_code, processing_error). Pagination behavior beyond a limit default (no cursor/total) is unaddressed, which is the only real gap for a 7-parameter, no-required-args 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretive value the schema lacks — framing on_products=false as the supported orphan-audit path and clarifying that archived=true switches result sets rather than filtering. It does not explain sort/limit/search/workspace beyond what the schema already says.

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 and resource ('List the merchant's generated design images') plus ordering ('newest first'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_my_products and list_my_orders. It also names the return artifact (design_uuids) and points at the downstream tools that consume it.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scenarios: on_products=false for orphan auditing before archiving, archived=true for archived designs, and polling while processing_status is pending/processing. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling tool to use instead in any case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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