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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive). The description adds valuable context the annotations do not: catalog size (~200 templates), content of each template (web app, API, database, live demo), and that results include demo links. It does not mention result capping beyond the schema's limit parameter, but the added operational context is strong.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, followed by the catalog description and the handoff instruction. No filler.

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?

Complete for a read-only search tool with an output schema already present. The description supplies the catalog context and the critical follow-up call (build_app_from_template with a template id), which is exactly what an agent needs to complete the workflow.

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%, so the schema already documents query, limit, and category with examples. The description restates the query concept with examples that mirror the schema, adding little beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) and resource (app templates) and enumerates concrete example domains (dance school, restaurant, clinic, store, CRM). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_marketplace and find_forms by naming the exact catalog and scope.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the user wants a ready-made app for a kind of business') and closes by routing to the follow-up tool build_app_from_template with the required argument. The alternative/next step is named with the condition that selects it.

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