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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral constraint — the owner-only authorization requirement — plus the read-only nature of the operation. It does not cover rate limits, caching, or failure modes, but the key access prerequisite is surfaced.

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 front-loaded sentences that lead with the return content, followed by the authorization constraint. The quoted-phrase framing adds some verbosity but earns its place by naming concrete use cases.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is technically redundant, yet the description still conveys the shape and the owner-only constraint an agent must satisfy. Complete enough for a two-param read tool, with only the designId input semantics left implicit.

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 50%: token is richly documented in the schema, but designId has no schema description and the description adds no meaning for it (the 'id I must name' phrase refers to a returned actor id, not the input). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate for the half-documented schema.

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 ('Read who can open a design') and enumerates the payload (owner, every shared actor, role, and granted actions). It is clearly distinguishable from the write-oriented sibling ui_builder_share_design.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Only the owner may ask') and frames the use case ('who else is in here' and 'the id I must name when sharing'), which implicitly routes to share_design. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when not to call it.

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