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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add real value by disclosing the default ownership filter versus the all=true scope and the shape of returned fields; it omits ordering, pagination behavior, and what 'credits' or 'variants ready/total' represent.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the scope constraint in a parenthetical and the returned fields listed compactly; every clause carries information. The trailing field list is dense but earnable.

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, no-output-schema list tool the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys scope, default behavior, and return fields. Minor gaps remain around pagination/limit semantics and result ordering, but an agent can call it correctly as written.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the 'all' flag well ('all=true for the whole cabinet') and implicitly the default user scope, but says nothing about 'limit' or 'status' — the latter's meaning relies entirely on its enum values.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: listing recent creative orders in the cabinet, and enumerates the returned fields (order_id, status, brief, variants ready/total, credits, when). It is clearly a list operation distinct from order/create siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with creative_get.

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 useful scoping guidance for the default case ('yours by default; all=true for the whole cabinet'), but never states when to prefer this over creative_get or creative_order, or any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the 'recent orders' framing rather than spelled out.

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