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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by indicating the output includes selection guidance, not just raw slugs. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as whether the list is static, ordered, or affected by context; for a simple 0-parameter listing tool, this is acceptable.

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, tight sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the guidance detail. Every word 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 0-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema present, this description is complete. It states what the tool returns (format slugs) and what extra value it provides (selection guidance). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 has 0 parameterstons, so there is no parameter burden. The schema coverage is trivially 100% (empty properties). Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('supported NexDoc Design format slugs'), and adds that it provides selection guidance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_runs or check_file, which deal with runs and files rather than formats.

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 phrase 'with selection guidance' signals when to use this tool: when an agent needs to know which format slugs are available and which one to pick. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but since this is a standalone listing tool with no direct sibling, the context is sufficient.

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