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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond that — the response includes a revision count — but says nothing about invalid-id handling or auth. Adequate but modest given the low annotation-driven bar.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the id-sourcing tip second. 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with complete annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, argument sourcing, and one return detail. Only a fuller statement of the return shape or error behavior is missing, which is minor here.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. 'By id' plus the pointer to list_designs as the id source gives real semantics for designId, though it adds no format details.

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 (Read), resource (cloud design), and scope (one, by id), and even previews the return content (revision count). It explicitly contrasts with list_designs, letting an agent tell singular fetch from bulk listing without opening the schema.

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 operative context: 'Use list_designs to find ids,' which tells the agent how to obtain the required argument. It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool (e.g., versus get_design_schema or open_in_editor), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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