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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: results are paginated via nextCursor and each entity includes an image URL. It stops short of describing ordering or what missing entities mean.

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 with no filler, and the resource enumeration leads. The first sentence is a fragment, which slightly weakens the front-loading of what the tool actually does.

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 an output schema, rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description only needs to frame scope and pagination, which it does. The remaining gap is disambiguation from sibling list/search tools in a crowded namespace.

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 parameter documentation is already handled (including the ambassador/character clarification). The description's only parameter remark, 'Pass query to find them by name', echoes the schema's own query description without adding syntax or matching behavior.

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?

Names the resource set precisely (products, places, characters/mascots, design elements) and states each item carries an image URL. However it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, and it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as search_library, list_creatives or list_design_systems.

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?

'Pass query to find them by name' gives one usage hint, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_library or list_design_systems, and no when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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