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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail that annotations cannot: it discloses the return shape (matching templates with slug, category and preview link), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and library scope, followed by the usage trigger and return fields. The parenthetical category list is somewhat long but earns its place by conveying domain coverage; no wasted sentences.

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 helpfully compensates by describing returned fields (slug, category, preview link). Combined with annotations covering safety and the fully documented schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though result ranking/pagination behavior is unstated.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The category examples in the description (journal formats, universities, posters) loosely echo the category slug filter but add no syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 (search) and resource (LaTeX template library), and scopes it with size (1000+), domain (university theses, journal formats, CVs, posters) and use case. It is clearly distinguishable from get_template, which fetches one template, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user wants a LaTeX template or a starting point for a document.' This is clear context for invoking the tool, but it offers no exclusions or routing to siblings like get_template or create_project_from_template.

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