Get the latest Canva design state for auto-selecting campaigns.

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's only obligation is to add context. It adds nothing — no statement of whether the returned state is cached, whether it reflects unpublished or published designs, or what happens if no design exists.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no bloat, which is structurally fine, but the conciseness comes at the cost of zero substance — it repeats the title rather than front-loading useful information.

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 read tool with an optional parameter and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what the 'design state' comprises and how it feeds campaign auto-selection. Neither is addressed, leaving the agent unable to predict the result or the trigger conditions.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'account' label semantics precisely (exact configured private account profile label). The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'for auto-selecting campaigns' hints at a workflow purpose but does not tell the agent which conditions should trigger this call versus other campaign tools.

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