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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are sorted newest first and each entry carries design_id and name, which the annotations do not convey. It omits pagination and empty-result behavior, keeping it off a 5.

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 sentence, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the title. Every clause (order, returned fields) 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 single-parameter, closed-world read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: what each returned item contains and how results are ordered. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 single optional 'limit' parameter (1-50, default 20) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond implying results are ordered newest first. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Lists the user's PCBEditor designs') plus ordering ('newest first') and the fields returned (design_id, name). It is clearly not get_board, list_inventory, or search_parts by resource, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative tools are stated; usage is only implied by 'the user's designs' as a discovery/listing step before get_board or design_board. For a simple list tool this is acceptable but leaves guidance to inference.

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