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

Although annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds key context: 'no auth, no state changes, no charges.' This goes beyond annotations by clarifying authentication requirements and cost implications, which are critical for an agent to decide whether to call the tool.

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?

The description is two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then pack usage guidance and behavioral notes into the second sentence. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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, return values are already defined. The description covers filters, auth/charges, and directs to search/fetch for deeper source text. It is slightly incomplete in not differentiating from similar list tools like list_offerings and list_toolkits, which is relevant given the sibling set.

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 input schema already provides 100% descriptive coverage for all three parameters, with examples in each property description. The tool description only restates the filter dimensions ('audience, workflow, or output type') without adding new semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 the tool lists public Cannon Studio capabilities, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('capabilities'). It distinguishes from search/fetch by directing deeper source-text needs elsewhere, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_offerings or list_toolkits.

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 explicitly says to use search or fetch when deeper source text is needed, providing a clear when-not-to-use scenario. However, it does not mention alternatives such as list_offerings or list_toolkits, so the guidance is partial.

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