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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds workflow positioning (call first) and the shape of the returned records, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or whether the list is stable across calls.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the resource and its fields come first, and the actionable directive ("Call this first") is placed at the end where it is most salient. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by listing the returned fields. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the volume/ordering of results is unaddressed, which is minor for a zero-arg lookup.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing parameter-related, which is appropriate here since there is nothing to disambiguate.

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 states the resource precisely — cups available for design — and enumerates the fields returned (blank_shape_id, name, colours, print coverages, fonts), which distinguishes it from design/mockup/quote siblings. The verb is only implied through the tool name rather than stated outright, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

"Call this first" gives explicit ordering guidance that an agent can act on immediately, effectively defining this as the entry point before create_design. It does not name any alternative or a when-not condition, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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