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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful caveats: results are 'not tested', listings come from public share pages, and results are capped at 20. It also instructs the agent to 'Cite the url field', which is useful beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

Three compact sentences cover the search dimensions, result fields, limits, caveats, and citation expectation without wasted words. The most important operational information is front-loaded, and each sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (name, slug, URL, share link, creator, summary, category), the 300-character summary limit, and the untested nature of listings. It lacks detail on empty-result or error behavior, but those are minor gaps given the schema and annotations.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds minimal semantic value by mapping 'task, keyword, category or app' to the query, category, and app fields, and by noting the 20-result cap, but it does not explain parameter syntax or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search community Grok Bot templates') and names the exact dimensions by which search is possible: task, keyword, category, or app. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like search_guides and get_bot by clarifying it returns template listings, not guides or detailed bot info.

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 context is implied: use this tool when looking for community bot templates, especially because results are 'read from public share pages' and 'not tested'. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling 'search' or 'search_guides', nor does it name exclusions or alternatives.

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