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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are scoped by key type (personal key = account designs, team key = team designs). It stops short of describing return format, ordering, or pagination 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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the scoping rule. The editor-location analogy earns its place by grounding the result set for the agent, and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ambiguity: what set of designs comes back and why the key type matters. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, pagination, what a personal-vs-team mismatch looks like), which are low-stakes 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax or filtering to document, and the description adds no misleading parameter claims, so nothing further is needed on this dimension.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("List the cloud designs") and adds a scope qualifier ("this key can see"), which is more than a name restatement. It is distinguishable from a single-fetch tool like get_design, though it never explicitly names list_templates as the contrasting sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope explanation (personal vs team key determines what returns), so an agent can infer when this is the right call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no exclusions, and no routing to siblings such as get_design for a single design or list_templates for templates.

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