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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing what the tool returns in detail (whether it is a planning document, client/goal/frequency, posts with proposed dates) and by explicitly stating 'Nothing is written.' This goes beyond the annotations by describing the tool's inspection and validation behavior.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and return contents; the second sentence states safety and usage order. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents. It also covers the core use case (confirming copy before import) and safety. With only 1 required parameter and full schema coverage, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema; 'proposed date' loosely maps to start_date, but no new syntax or examples are given. The schema already documents design_ids and start_date sufficiently.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Canva design'), then enumerates the exact return contents (planning document flag, client/goal/frequency, post copy and proposed date). It also distinguishes itself from sibling import_canva_designs by stating 'Use this before import_canva_designs', making the tool's unique role clear.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this before import_canva_designs so the user can confirm the copy and schedule.' This names the alternative tool and gives a precise condition, leaving no ambiguity about sequencing or purpose.

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