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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: it discloses which fields are matched (names, who each is for, tab names) and the ranking rule (free versions first when one exists). That ranking detail materially changes how an agent should interpret result order and is not in any structured field.

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?

A single tight sentence-plus-clause, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by examples and the ranking rule. No filler; every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is searched and how results are ordered, which is close to sufficient. The only meaningful omission is the limit parameter's behavior and default, so an agent may not realize how many results to expect.

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 50%: query is described as 'Trade, job or need' and limit is undocumented. The description enriches query with concrete example terms and the fields matched, which is genuine added meaning, but it says nothing about the limit parameter or default result count, leaving that gap unfilled.

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 ('Find templates') plus the facets searched ('by trade, job or need') with concrete example queries. It is clearly a search tool, though it never names the siblings list_templates or get_free_template, so the boundary with them must be inferred from the 'free versions first' clause.

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 example queries ('landlord', 'bakery', 'stocktake') imply the kind of keyword search this is for, giving an agent a usable usage signal. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_templates or get_free_template, so routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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