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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (slug, category, preview link) but does not describe result limits, ordering, or matching behavior. This is acceptable for a simple search tool but adds only moderate behavioral detail.

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 concise sentences front-load the action and scope, then describe the return fields, then route to the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of structural annotations.

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 low-complexity search tool with fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It explains what results look like even though there is no output schema, and it points to get_template for follow-up details.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'category' already well-documented in the input schema. The description mentions template categories and return fields but does not add meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Search') and the resource ('letX's library of 1000+ free LaTeX templates'), and lists concrete types of templates to make scope obvious. It explicitly names get_template as the complement for full details, distinguishing this discovery/search tool from the detail-retrieval sibling.

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 states that this tool is for searching and discovering templates, then explicitly instructs to 'Use get_template for full details.' This gives an agent a clear branching rule: search here first, then fetch details with get_template.

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