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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: ordering semantics (newest first, pinned first), the fact that rows persist until deleted, and that no auth or ownership is required.

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?

Three short sentences with the resource and ordering up front, then the differentiator, then the access precondition. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described; pagination is covered by the title and schema, and ordering, durability, and access requirements are all stated. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 75% and documents limit and offset well; the description adds meaning for the undescribed marketAddress parameter by noting any market address is accepted. Chain and pagination details are left to the schema, which 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a market's persistent creator canvas updates') and immediately contrasts it with the ephemeral surface served by kellian_publish_market_surface, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling 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?

Explicitly frames the durable-vs-ephemeral distinction against kellian_publish_market_surface and states the precondition that any market address works for this public read. It does not spell out when to prefer reading over kellian_post_canvas_update or kellian_delete_canvas_update, but those are self-evidently different operations.

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