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

Annotations only declare it is a safe read; the description adds materially more: it depends on Label Studio to answer (a remote/service dependency the annotations do not convey), it matches against human-written labelling-team descriptions, and it silently drops hits the library cannot render so results are always pickable. That last point is a non-obvious output-filtering behavior an agent must know.

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?

Dense and mostly front-loaded, with each sentence carrying distinct information (scope, usage, mechanism, sibling comparison, result filtering). It opens on a negative caveat rather than the core action and runs long, but there is no filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description still tells the agent what comes back (renderable, pickable layouts) and what backs the search. For a 3-parameter read tool in a crowded sibling namespace, an agent has everything needed to choose and call it 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 67% (query and kind documented, limit not). The description compensates by showing concrete query phrasing examples ("a hero with a big photo and one line of copy", "a pricing table for three plans"), which teaches the expected natural-language style better than the schema's single example. It says nothing about limit or kind beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (find/search) and resource (layouts), plus the mechanism: semantic search over the labelling team's layout descriptions. It explicitly contrasts with both uichemy_find_templates and uichemy_create_project, so the agent can place it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ("Not needed to start a new site"), a when (changing one section), and a named alternative with the deciding condition: use find_templates for exact field filters, this one for "a feeling rather than a field." Nothing is left to inference.

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