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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description need not re-establish that. It adds some value by disclosing partial return content ('aspect and duration'), but with no output schema the description should carry more of the return-shape burden (IDs, titles, pagination, rank/order) than it does.

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 purpose, then usage, then return shape. Each sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description must cover return values, and it partially does. However, for a 4-param search tool with no required params and half the schema undescribed, an agent still lacks guidance on query semantics, defaults, and result volume.

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 only 50%, and the description says nothing about any of the four parameters. The bare 'limit' and 'industry' params are documented nowhere, and the description does not compensate by explaining search matching, format filtering, or result count behavior.

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 and resource ('Search the Wandura ad-template catalog'), and clarifies its role relative to clone_template ('Use this first to find a template to clone'). It does not distinguish itself from other lookup siblings such as browse_library or get_template, so an agent must still infer 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?

Gives a clear ordering cue ('use this first') tied to a downstream action (cloning), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it never says when to prefer browse_library or get_template instead.

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