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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it filters to 'published designs with live status' and lists the three possible statuses (on sale, hidden, pending). It also specifies the default limit of 50, which is not in 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?

The description is two sentences long, with the primary purpose stated first. Every sentence serves a purpose: first defines the output, second lists the parameter. No wasted words.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 optional parameter, no required fields), the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned (published designs with status), who it returns (user's own), and the only parameter customization. An output schema exists, so return format details are not needed.

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 description briefly mentions the only parameter (limit with default 50), but the input schema already provides a full description ('Max designs to return (default 50, max 200)'). The description adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 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 states it lists 'the user's own published designs with live status', specifying a clear verb (list) and resource (designs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like designer_submissions (likely unpublished drafts) by focusing on published designs and their status categories (on sale/hidden/pending).

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 clearly implies it should be used when a user wants to view their own published designs. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like designer_submissions for drafts, but the context is sufficient for an agent. The optional limit parameter is noted with its default.

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