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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial new context: a hard auth prerequisite, the exact failure mode ('a call without it fails asking for sign-in'), and per-agent remediation steps. It also discloses the return contents (asset_id, kind, canvas size, last edit) and the derived 'what each project still needs' summary, none of which the annotations convey.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded well in the first two sentences, but the auth remediation parenthetical (three agent-specific login procedures plus a terminal command) consumes the majority of the text and is disproportionate to a read-only list tool. The final 'Read-only.' fragment is redundant with the annotations.

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 usefully describes the return shape and the auth prerequisite, which is most of what an agent needs for a one-parameter list call. It omits pagination/result limits and empty-result behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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 is a single optional 'query' parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the case-insensitive substring match and 80-char cap. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-carried semantics 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists their projects (one per app) with every saved asset in each') and even enumerates the returned fields, which clearly separates it from asset-level siblings like get_asset or list_devices. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with any sibling, so it lands at a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger ('Use this when the user wants to work on something they already made in appdesigns') and backs it with concrete scenarios: changing a screenshot set, header/event art, adding to a project, seeing what's missing. There are no stated exclusions and no named alternative tools (e.g. search_library, get_asset) for the adjacent cases, so it is clear context without routing.

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