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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are templates pre-filled with sample data, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or whether query and category combine as AND.

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 short sentences with the action and result front-loaded, followed by concrete search examples. The long enumeration of thirteen document types is somewhat padded but does double duty as search keyword inspiration.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, and both optional parameters are fully documented in the schema. The only material gap is how the two filters interact and whether results are bounded, which an agent would have to discover by calling.

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% and the enum already enumerates categories, so the baseline is 3. The example search terms ('invoice', 'contract') give a weak hint about matching behavior, but do not extend the schema's stated 'name, purpose or category' matching semantics.

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 and resource ('Lists the gallery's ready documents ... each a template with sample data'), making the listing semantics unmistakable and contrasting implicitly with the singular sibling get_template. It is clear without needing to open the schema, though it never names get_template as the fetch-one alternative.

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 tells the agent how to search ('Search by a word ... or a category'), which implies discovery use, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no routing to get_template or render_template. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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