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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds useful behavioral detail: returned ordering, that each item carries a per-connection permission, the 50-item page cap, and that node/edge counts are deliberately absent from results.

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?

Everything sits in one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the essential capability is stated first. The semicolon-chained clauses make it slightly harder to scan than it could be, but no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description helps by sketching the return shape (diagrams with per-connection permission) and the ordering. It doesn't say what identifying fields each diagram carries (id/name) or how nextCursor terminates paging, which leaves a small gap for a list 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 only 25%, so the description must carry weight and it does: it names all four parameters (workspaceId, query, cursor, limit) and explains the cursor's role as paging via nextCursor. Minor gap: it doesn't describe cursor opacity/lifetime or that query is title-only in more detail than the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists diagrams'), adds scope ('this connection can access') and ordering ('most recently updated first'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_canvas by noting node/edge counts are omitted there, so an agent can choose between them without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: filter by workspaceId or title query, page with cursor/limit. It names the alternative for a related need ('get_canvas outline has them'), which is real routing value. It stops short of stating when not to use it versus siblings like show_diagram or search_shapes, so not a full 5.

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