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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: only active templates are listed, it accesses the public library, and results are ordered by usage count. These details are useful and align with the read-only annotation, adding insight without contradicting it.

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 exactly two sentences and earns both: the first packs the resource, scope, output composition, and ordering; the second gives the workflow context. Nothing is redundant, and key integration information is front-loaded.

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?

The listing purpose, public scope, output fields, ordering, and recommended successor tool are all stated, and the output schema covers the return structure. With optional parameters fully documented in the schema and read-only semantics declared in annotations, the description is complete for an agent to invoke and integrate the tool 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 100%: all 5 parameters (limit, scene, categoryId, isRecommended, titleContains) have descriptions and defaults/limits. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List active templates in the public template library', and enumerates the returned fields and ordering. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by scoping to templates and pointing to create_form_from_template as the next step.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it to find a template, then call create_form_from_template with its id, framing this as the fastest way to build a quiz when a suitable template exists. This also implicitly tells the agent when not to use it, when no suitable template exists, while mentioning a named alternative workflow.

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