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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns matching templates with brand_template_id, name, and preview thumbnail, and notes that some templates include data fields that can be autofilled. It doesn't describe pagination behavior in detail, but the continuation parameter covers that. Slight gap: no mention of rate limits or auth, but not critical for a read-only search tool.

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 well-structured: a clear first sentence stating the core function, a when-to-use paragraph, a when-not-to-use paragraph, and a brief return-value statement. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters and complex routing logic.

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 read-only search tool with 86% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the tool's scope, exclusions, return values, and the key decision point about data fields. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that results are paginated or that 'continuation' should be used for subsequent pages, but the schema's 'continuation' parameter description covers that. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds value by explaining the 'dataset' filter's purpose (find templates to autofill) and the 'query' parameter's usage rule (only provide when user explicitly names/describes a template). The 'user_intent' parameter is described as mandatory for LLM clients, which is important context. The description doesn't add much for 'brand_kit_id' or 'continuation', but the schema covers those adequately.

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 states the tool's purpose: find or browse Canva Brand Templates, and distinguishes it from related tools by specifying it works with Brand Templates, not existing designs. It names the resource (Brand Templates) and the action (search/browse), and explicitly contrasts with 'search-designs' and 'create-design-from-brand-template'.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: when a Brand Template needs to be located, when a reusable starting point is needed, or when a template with data fields is needed before autofilling. It also gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: not for existing designs, not for creating new designs without a template source, and not for creating/updating/populating an already selected template. This is exemplary.

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