Get Canva Design Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds concrete return payload contents (title, page count, edit_url, thumbnail) beyond annotations, but says nothing about auth requirements, failures for invalid/nonexistent design IDs, or rate limits.

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 with the action and returned payload front-loaded and no filler. It could be sharper by leading with the not-a-list distinction, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden reasonably by enumerating the fields returned. The main gap is the absence of failure/empty-case behavior and sibling routing.

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 the single design_id parameter is documented in-schema with a format example. The description only restates that the lookup is by Design ID, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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?

Description states a specific verb + resource ("Lấy thông tin chi tiết một thiết kế trên Canva") and enumerates the returned fields (title, page count, edit_url, thumbnail). This clearly distinguishes a single-design detail fetch from a list operation, though it never names a sibling like canva_list_workspace_designs to sharpen the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer that this is the lookup path once it already has a design_id, but nothing in the text confirms that or routes it away from listing/export siblings.

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