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.