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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it returns ids rather than content, and unrestricted/NSFW templates are hidden unless the flag is set — a non-obvious gating rule. It never states read-only semantics or pagination behavior, which is why it is not 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return value, then the hand-off to the generation tool. Every sentence contributes new information with no restatement of the name or schema.

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 4-parameter, output-schema-less listing tool, the description covers the action, the returned field (ids), and the key gating flag. The main remaining gap is that pagination semantics and read-only guarantees are left entirely to the schema and annotations (absent), but 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns above that by clarifying that `search` matches name or tag and that `unrestricted` acts as a visibility gate rather than a filter on results already returned. It adds no guidance on page/limit usage.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Find RYLA templates'), with the resource defined inline as 'ready-made looks: scene, outfit, pose' and the return value stated ('Returns template ids'). This clearly separates it from the ryla_generate_* siblings, which produce media rather than list existing assets.

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?

The description gives the downstream path explicitly ('Pass an id as `templateId` to ryla_generate_image'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right prerequisite. It does not state any exclusions or when a different listing tool (e.g. ryla_list_characters) should be preferred, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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