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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context like 'free', 'Read-only', and explains the two scopes and their behavior with filtering, which goes beyond 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 concise and well-structured: front-loaded with purpose, then details on scope, filtering, and pagination. Every sentence is informative and earns its place, with no unnecessary 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 tool's simplicity and the richness of annotations and schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what is listed, scopes, filtering, pagination, and read-only nature. It is complete for a list tool without an output schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of 'only_official' and 'only_workspace' in a more integrated way and clarifies the UI analogy ('same toggle as the in-app library lens'), which adds meaning beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool lists reusable creative agents, distinguishing between workspace (private) and official (public template) agents. It provides specific verbs and resources, and differentiates from sibling tools like 'call_creative_agent_preset'.

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 explains when to use the tool (e.g., 'picked from the UI, callable as an MCP tool from Managed Agents') and details filtering options with mutual exclusivity. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear from sibling tools.

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