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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and the fact that it lists only enabled tools with their fields, costs, and limits, which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, both purposeful. The first sentence states the core action and endpoint, and the second adds useful context about why edit tools matter. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema details.

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 simple, read-only listing tool with a single optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It names the endpoint, the data returned, and the domain context, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The only parameter, rd_api_key, has full schema description coverage. The description does not need to explain the parameter, and the schema already provides its type, default, and purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific language: 'List the enabled canvas edit tools from /v2/edit/tools with their fields, costs, and limits.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, endpoint, and what is returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_edit_tool and estimate_edit_tool_cost.

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 provides helpful context by positioning edit tools as the recommended post-processing approach, but it does not explicitly state when to use this listing tool versus alternatives such as run_edit_tool or estimate_edit_tool_cost. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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