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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior, and the description adds that the tool returns only summary fields ({id, title, url}) rather than full records, with a clear pointer to fetch for more detail. This clarifies the tool's limited scope beyond the annotation hints.

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?

Two compact sentences cover the resource, return shape, follow-up action, and tool differentiation with no wasted words. The most important operational information is front-loaded.

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-only search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how to obtain full records. The sibling-tool context and annotations cover the remaining safety and usage concerns.

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?

The only parameter, query, is already fully documented in the schema as 'search terms'. The description adds no additional query syntax or formatting guidance, so it does not meaningfully extend the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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: searching letX's public library of free LaTeX templates. It also differentiates itself from search_templates by noting it is a ChatGPT deep-research compatibility tool and that search_templates gives richer output for other clients.

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 identifies the intended client context (ChatGPT deep-research) and names the alternative tool (search_templates) for other clients. It also states the follow-up action of passing an id to fetch the full record.

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