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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the response is metadata-only and sorted newest-first, but it omits details about authentication, potential credit billing implications, or pagination. For a list action this is acceptable, though incomplete.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, object, response scope, and ordering. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The core action is clear and the output schema covers return shape, but the description leaves dpop_token unexplained, gives no routing guidance against fetch_design/list_design_versions, and does not address the schema inconsistency where npub is described as Required while the schema marks it optional.

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 description adds no explanation for npub or dpop_token. Schema covers npub with a purpose note, but dpop_token is completely undocumented and the description does not clarify it. The word 'your' only weakly associates the listing with the npub parameter.

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 action ('List') and resource ('your stored designs'), with additional scope 'metadata only' and ordering 'newest first'. This distinguishes it from fetch-style and version-list siblings.

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?

'Metadata only' implies that full design content is handled elsewhere, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives like fetch_design or list_design_versions, nor state when to prefer this tool. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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