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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds behavioral context beyond those flags. It clarifies that results are grouped by category tag, that omitted filters return all categories, that the response excludes build configuration, and it reveals the return shape, which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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 dense and contains no filler; every clause carries meaning and flows logically from listing to filtering to return-shape to follow-up actions. However, it is a single long sentence with many semicolons and asides, which could be restructured into clearer separate sentences or bullet points for readability, preventing a 5.

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 lack of an output schema, the description fully compensates by documenting the response structure, the category discovery pattern, parameter behavior, and downstream tool usage (get/use). The level of detail is appropriately complete for an agent to use this tool correctly and know exactly what to do next.

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 100% with parameter descriptions already present, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that 'category' is a snake_case slug and not a display name, and explains the discovery pattern for categories. However, it does not add a large amount of new information beyond the schema, so a 4 rather than 5 is appropriate.

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: 'Lists Riddle's public templates,' immediately distinguishing it from sibling riddleTemplate_list, which handles the project's own templates. The scope is explicit and the contrast with a named sibling makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly contrasts with riddleTemplate_list, tells when to call without arguments to discover categories, and explains how to filter by category and type. It also directs users to riddleTemplate_get or riddleTemplate_use as follow-up actions based on their needs, providing clear usage guidance across the workflow.

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