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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering ('newest first') and the pagination model (cursor continues), but says nothing about read-only nature, permission requirements, or whether the listing is scoped to the caller's account.

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 sentence covering scope, ordering, and pagination, with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause 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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers scope, ordering, and pagination adequately for a simple list tool. Only the absence of any auth/permission framing keeps it short of complete.

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 100%, so all three parameters (limit, token, cursor) are already documented in the schema, including the non-obvious token/header tradeoff. The description only echoes the cursor's role and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (UI-builder designs) plus ordering ('newest first'), which separates it from ui_builder_list_catalogs and ui_builder_list_comments. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is by resource noun alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of 'the cursor to continue' signals this is the entry point for paging through designs. There is no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g. versus ui_builder_search_components or ui_builder_get_design) and no exclusions.

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