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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that two resource types are mixed in one result, that results can be name-searched, and that pagination applies. It still omits ordering and whether results are truncated.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded with the resource list first and the identifier caveat second. No filler and 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?

With no output schema and a nested page object, the description carries return-shape burden and only says what categories come back. It does not describe the default behavior of kind, result ordering, or the exact fields of a node/asset entry, leaving gaps for a 4-parameter 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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. 'Name search' maps to the otherwise undocumented query parameter, and pagination is covered by both the description and the nested page schema, but the kind enum values (node/asset/all) are never explained in prose or schema.

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 states a specific verb (lists) and resources (canvas nodes and stored assets) scoped to a workspace, which is enough to separate it from fuzz_get_node/fuzz_get_asset. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention of name search and pagination and by the 'Node IDs and asset IDs are different identifiers' warning, which hints at how downstream lookups should be routed. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over fuzz_get_asset, fuzz_get_node, or fuzz_preview_assets, nor any prerequisites.

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