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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description corroborates the closed-catalog nature ('Luxor design template pages') and adds genuinely useful context about what is returned (names, page URLs, preview images the user can open). It stops short of describing result count, default result size, or the 25-item cap implied by the limit parameter.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return summary following. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input style, and return contents adequately. The only meaningful gap is result-size/pagination behavior via the undocumented limit parameter.

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 only 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema and the description enriches it meaningfully with example industry phrases, which is real added value. However, the 'limit' parameter (default 8, max 25) is never mentioned in the description and is undocumented in the schema, so half the parameter surface remains unexplained.

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?

Specific verb ('Finds') plus a well-defined resource ('Luxor design template pages') scoped to a profession or industry, with concrete example queries ('roofing', 'med spa'). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the order/product siblings. The second sentence even names what comes back, removing ambiguity about output shape.

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: the examples signal that queries should be profession/industry phrases, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' framing and no mention of alternatives or when not to call it. An agent can infer the context, but nothing routes it explicitly against other options.

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