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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond that, such as what information is returned or how pagination/filtering affects the result.

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 single sentence is technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It does not front-load useful details about scope, filters, or return behavior.

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 tool with five undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what describe returns, how filters are applied, or how to choose between this and related list/inspect tools.

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?

There are five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention ids, limit, offset, artboard, or name_contains at all. An agent gets no meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 gives a verb and resources ("Describe the artboards and shapes"), so the general intent is inferable. However, it is vague about what a "description" contains and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_artboards, list_shapes, or inspect_layout.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_artboards, list_shapes, or inspect_layout. It also gives no indication of when the filter parameters should be used.

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