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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the return shape: metadata only, no canvas content — the key behavioral fact for choosing this over get_canvas.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action first and the routing hint last. Every sentence 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 annotations covering the safety profile, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description carries the remaining load: it names the resource, the return scope (metadata, not content), and the alternative for full content. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and all three parameters (limit, workspace_id, parent_document_id) are documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies workspace scoping via "del workspace" and adds no syntax or default details beyond the 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 ("Lista") and resource ("canvases del workspace") with a clarifying gloss (whiteboard/diagrama visual). It distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_canvas by name, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative: "Para ver el contenido completo de un canvas: usar get_canvas(canvas_id)", giving a clear condition for choosing between the two. It stops short of stating the inverse (when listing is preferred over other lookups), leaving slight inference.

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