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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the one-word 'Read-only.' is reinforcement rather than new information. The genuinely additive disclosure is the result cap ('up to 8 matches') and the exact fields returned, which no annotation or output schema conveys.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the search scope before the return format and the chaining hint. The only marginally wasteful element is the standalone 'Read-only.' sentence, which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract and does so fully: match count cap plus the fields (slug, title, one-line summary, schedule, guide link). Combined with the get_template handoff, an agent has everything needed to call and chain this tool.

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 single query parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 2-100 character bound and examples. 'By plain words' restates that, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (search), a named resource (the WhatShouldMyBotDo library of AI agent use cases), a scope (small businesses) and the input modality (plain words). The closing sentence ties the output to get_template, so an agent can place it in the sibling workflow without opening any 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?

Clearly implies the search-then-fetch pattern via 'Use a slug from here with get_template,' which is concrete routing guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over plan_first_agent or state exclusions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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