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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description's 'Read-only; changes nothing' largely restates that. It does add genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the recipe includes populating demo data 'with the user's consent', implying downstream state changes the agent must gate on the user, and it previews the multi-step capture/upload hand-off flow.

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 usage condition is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the when-not exclusion follows immediately. The middle sentence is long and list-like but every clause maps to a distinct part of the returned recipe, so little is wasted; the closing 'Read-only; changes nothing' is the one redundant bit.

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 still tells the agent the return format (markdown), the shape of the content, and the operational preconditions (coding agent with terminal, user's consent). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters carry enums and per-value descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3). The phrase 'for one platform and store' adds only the marginal insight that a single call yields one recipe selected by those two values, not richer syntax or format guidance.

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 ('Returns the full appdesigns recipe for one platform and store, as markdown') and enumerates the content the recipe contains (screen selection, demo data, capture commands, caption rules, upload steps). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling retrievers like get_design_guide or get_asset, which return different artifacts.

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?

Explicit when-to-use condition ('you are working in an app's code and can run commands (a coding agent) and the user wants App Store or Google Play screenshots') plus an explicit when-not ('Not for a chat without a terminal, where the screenshots come as attachments instead'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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