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 genuinely useful context beyond that: catalog scale, the licensing model (commercial license on all items), and that most items ship editable Figma/Sketch/PSD source. It omits pagination behavior and result-count limits.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: the first defines scope, the second tells the agent what comes back, the third covers licensing and source-file availability. Front-loaded with the catalog identity and zero 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly picks up the burden of describing returns (prices, free/paid status, page URLs) and licensing. It is nearly complete; it does not explain the 'page' parameter's practical limits or how result sets are sized, which is the only real gap for a paginated search tool.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the with_screens flag's intended follow-up with get_item_screens. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search EpicPxls' catalog of 65,000+ design resources') and enumerates the resource types covered. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from search-like siblings such as find_fonts or get_free_assets, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. The description never mentions find_fonts, list_categories, or get_free_assets, leaving the agent to infer that this is the general query entry point while those siblings handle narrower cases.

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