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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the result-visibility filter (what is excluded from results) and the return shape (public design page links and display previews). It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the scoping constraint and exclusion list front-loaded before the return-value note. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what is returned (page links, previews), and annotations cover the safety profile. The gap is parameter behavior: an agent can call it, but cannot predict how `query` is matched or how `vehicleId` narrows results, which matters for a 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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing: it never explains what `query` matches, what `limit` defaults to or caps at (schema says 1-20 but not the default), or what `vehicleId` filters by. The `vehicleId` parameter in particular is non-obvious and undocumented anywhere.

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?

"Search only designs currently visible in the public Gallery" gives a specific verb (search) plus a precisely bounded resource (public gallery designs). The scope word "only" and the explicit exclusion list make it unambiguous what corpus is being queried, and no sibling tool competes for this operation.

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 exclusion of private, pending, rejected, and inactive works implicitly tells the agent this is not the tool for unpublished or own-project content, which is useful routing context. However, it never names where the agent should go instead for private/draft designs, nor does it mention the sibling tools that would be the alternative (e.g. get_project).

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