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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns metadata and access links only, does not summarize content, and does not provide per-slide thumbnails. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the scope of what the tool can and cannot do, while remaining consistent with the read-only nature.

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 well-organized and front-loaded: it starts with what is returned, then gives usage scenarios, then explicit exclusions. It is slightly verbose in repeating the metadata list and final 'Returns metadata' line, but every sentence earns its place and the structure aids comprehension.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (type, title, owner, links, thumbnail, timestamps, page count) and explicitly stating limitations. It lacks details on error conditions or permission requirements, but for a read-only lookup tool with rich annotations and sibling context, this is adequate.

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%, with the schema already providing detailed semantics for design_id (including URL acceptance and shortlink caveat) and user_intent. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond 'one existing Canva design,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific action ('Look up the record for one existing Canva design') and explicitly enumerates the metadata returned: design type, title, owner, links, thumbnail, timestamps, page count. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it is not for folders, image assets, text content, or per-slide thumbnails, which clearly separates it from get-design-content, get-design-pages, and get-design-thumbnail.

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 gives clear use cases ('open a specific design, find out who created it, check when it was last changed, or see how many pages it has') and explicit exclusions ('Not for folders or image assets. Do not use for reading or summarizing a design's text or for per-slide thumbnails'). It does not name the specific sibling tools to use instead, but the guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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