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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that — result ordering (newest first), inclusion of web-app-created and board-workspace designs, and the fact that an agent can continue web-app designs. It omits pagination behavior and what identifying fields come back in each entry.

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 compact sentences that front-load the result set and ordering. The parenthetical "(an agent can continue those too)" is a bit chatty but carries genuinely useful information, so it earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers ordering and scope but not the shape of returned entries (e.g., whether design IDs are included so get_design can be called next). That omission is the main completeness gap for a discovery-style 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 both limit and trashed are already documented, including the default of 20. The description's "With trashed, the designs in the trash instead" restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (the user's designs) and a scope detail (newest first, includes web-app and board-workspace designs), which clearly separates it from get_design, delete_design and restore_design. It never uses an explicit verb like "list", relying on the name/title for that, which slightly weakens the opening.

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: consult this to see the user's designs, and set trashed to view the trash instead. There is no explicit routing to siblings such as get_design for a single design, and no guidance on when a listing is preferable to fetching a specific design.

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