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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns ('full details') but does not explicitly declare it as read-only, mention error behavior for invalid slugs, or describe any side effects. The verb 'get' implies safety, but the description lacks explicit behavioral disclosure beyond that.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and includes an example, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it specifies the input and implies the output (full details). It could optionally mention that it returns a single design object, but 'full details' covers that. Overall, there are no missing pieces that would prevent correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds a concrete example ('royal-crown-121000019') that clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic description. This extra context helps the agent construct a valid parameter, exceeding the baseline.

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 clearly states a specific resource ('design'), a specific identifier type ('page slug'), and provides a concrete example. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_designs (which likely returns a list) by specifying 'full details for one design.' No ambiguity.

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 implies the tool is used when you have a specific slug and need complete details, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus search_designs (e.g., to obtain the slug) or list_categories. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, only implicit context.

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