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

Annotations already provide safety signals (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), so the description adds value by disclosing the return fields ('template name, description, category tags, and a preview URL') and the filtering behavior for public exposure. This goes beyond what annotations state without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences lead with the verb and resource, followed by return-value details and a constraint. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return fields, and an important filtering constraint. It lacks explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but the overall picture is adequately complete for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 50% (query has a description, limit does not). The description does not compensate by explaining either parameter. While 'search' hints at the query parameter, the limit parameter and its pagination role are entirely unaddressed, leaving a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('List and search') and identifies the resource ('public runbook templates') with clear scope ('published by ContinueOps admins for the MCP catalogue'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the public MCP exposure filter, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to browse or search public runbook templates) and states a key constraint ('Only templates explicitly flagged for public MCP exposure are returned'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools appear to serve the same purpose, so the context is sufficiently clear.

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