Aniq-UI template catalogue

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so the description needn't cover safety. It adds value beyond them: prices are 'now (after any sale or launch discount)', so values are live rather than static, and purchase is explicitly out of scope ('Buying happens on pageUrl'), which prevents an agent from trying to transact. It does not mention behavior for an unknown slug (error vs empty).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and key, followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration of returned fields; nothing is redundant. It is long and comma-heavy, which slightly hurts scannability, but each listed item earns its place by describing a distinct payload section.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned sections (packages and per-package pricing, licence line, features, use cases, tech stack, demos, docs, app/bundle relations, bundle membership). Only gaps are locale handling and error behavior for an invalid slug.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the slug's provenance ('from search-templates') but says nothing about locale, which the schema alone explains (enum of en/fr/es/ar, default en).

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 ('One Aniq-UI template in full') plus the keying identifier ('by its slug from search-templates'), and then enumerates exactly what 'in full' means: packages, prices, licence, features, use cases, stack, demos, docs, relations, bundles. This clearly separates it from search-templates (which yields slugs) and list-categories.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'by its slug from search-templates' tells the agent where the input comes from, and 'Buying happens on pageUrl' implies this tool is for inspection, not purchase. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative for listing many templates, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: empty categories are omitted entirely, and each result carries a count and a page link. It doesn't mention ordering or error behavior, which is minor for a read-only listing.

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 sentences, no filler, with the returned content and the filter stated before the routing instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 does the necessary work by describing return fields (count, page) and the non-empty filtering. It leaves the exact field names and result ordering unstated, but an agent can call it correctly on this information.

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 100% and the single locale parameter has its own enum and description, so the schema carries the burden. The tool description never mentions locale or how it affects the returned names and page links, so it adds nothing 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?

Names the exact resource (Aniq-UI catalogue categories) and an explicit scope filter (only those holding at least one template), plus what each entry carries (count and page). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search-templates, which handles the per-category template listing.

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 second sentence gives concrete routing: take a category's key from here and pass it to search-templates. That establishes the intended discovery-then-search workflow. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. that categories without templates never appear on the other side), but the usage path is unambiguous.

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

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses newest-first default ordering, query matching fields, price semantics including current discounts, and returned fields like pageUrl and demo. It still leaves pagination behavior to the schema rather than describing it.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and default behavior. Every sentence carries useful information about filtering, pricing, or sibling routing.

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 search tool with seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers default behavior, filtering semantics, returned fields, and where to go for detailed package information. It gives enough context to call the tool correctly without duplicating the schema.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that query matches names, descriptions, categories, tags, and features, and that category keys come from list-categories.

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 states a specific verb and resource: finding Aniq-UI templates. It also distinguishes this tool from get-template by directing users there for packages and details, and points to list-categories for category keys.

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?

It clearly explains default behavior with no arguments and how filters like query, category, type, freeOnly, and maxPriceUsd work. It names relevant siblings, though it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a full comparison with alternatives.

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