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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool discloses per-format page availability, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how results should be consumed versus export-design. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two well-structured sentences that are front-loaded with the action, then the usage condition, then the return content. The format enumeration is long but functional; no significant waste.

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?

For a read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (supported formats plus available page numbers per type). Parameters are documented in the schema, so the agent has enough to invoke correctly, though the relationship to export-design remains implicit.

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 both parameters (design_id, user_intent) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: checking which export file types a design supports and which pages are available per type. The resource is clearly identified (a Canva design's export formats). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling export-design, which performs the actual export, leaving the boundary between the two to inference.

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?

Gives clear triggering context: 'Use when a design needs exporting or downloading as a PDF, PNG, JPG...' and when only some pages are needed in a chosen format. It stops short of naming the alternative (export-design) or stating when NOT to use this tool, so the guidance is contextual but not fully routing.

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