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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description earns credit for resolving the tension between the HTTP verb and the semantics: 'POST /v1/designs/search (a read-only search)' tells the agent this POST does not mutate anything. It does not disclose pagination, result caps, or ordering behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the purpose and filters, followed by a short parenthetical covering the endpoint and read-only nature. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, yet it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering — a meaningful gap for a search endpoint. It is adequate for a two-param optional-filter list tool but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (kind, meta_data) are fully documented in the schema itself, including the key/value matching semantics for meta_data. The description only echoes the parameter names, adding nothing beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3.

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 ('List badge and certificate designs') plus the optional filter axes, and separately names the sibling family it belongs to (search/get designs). An agent can distinguish it from accredible_get_design (single fetch) and the other accredible_search_* tools without opening the schema.

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?

'optionally by kind or meta_data' conveys when the filters apply, so the basic usage context is implied. However, it never names the alternative for a single-design lookup (accredible_get_design) or states any exclusion, leaving routing to inference.

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