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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool lists from '/v1/edit/tools' with fields, costs, and limits, providing endpoint and return value context beyond 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: first states action and data returned, second gives examples and rationale. No fluff, efficiently front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (list with one optional param, output schema exists). The description covers purpose, endpoint, what is returned, and typical use cases. With output schema present, no need to detail return values.

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 100% for the single optional parameter (rd_api_key). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states it lists enabled canvas edit tools with fields, costs, and limits, and provides concrete examples of edit tools (background removal, palette conversion, etc.). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'run_edit_tool' or '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 implies usage: to view available edit tools before using them. It mentions 'recommended way to post-process generated pixel art,' providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like 'estimate_edit_tool_cost'.

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