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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by explaining the output format: 'Returns ranked recommendations with rationale.' It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral context about the mapping from purpose to real template names.

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?

The description is concise, with two short paragraphs that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The second paragraph adds rationale without being verbose. It efficiently communicates usage and motivation.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, when to use, and the nature of the output. It does not cover edge cases like ambiguous purposes, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only provides usage examples for the 'purpose' parameter, which are already present in the schema. No additional depth for 'topN' beyond schema description.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Suggest the best built-in template(s) for a described purpose.' It provides concrete examples (Q4 board pack, API reference) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_all_templates by specifying the use case of mapping a described purpose to template names.

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 states when to use: 'Use this when the user describes WHAT the document is... without naming a template.' It also explains why it exists (to avoid guessing template names) and implicitly indicates when not to use (when user names a template directly), providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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