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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: the corpus size (~200 templates), the fact each template is full-stack with a live demo, and that results include demo links and reusable ids. It does not discuss pagination or ranking behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 trigger condition, then the search behavior and the follow-up action. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining essentials: when to use it, what it searches, and how to proceed afterward. All parameters are optional, so nothing blocks a correct call.

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 query, category and limit are already documented in the schema; the description's business-type examples largely echo the query description. It adds the concept that results carry template ids usable elsewhere, but no new syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 (finds/searches) and resource (Xenition's ~200 full-stack app templates), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling build_app_from_template by describing the handoff. An agent can tell this apart from create_app/build_app 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 trigger ('when the user wants a ready-made app for a kind of business') with concrete examples, and names the follow-up action and the sibling to use for it ('pass a template id to build_app_from_template'). Both when-to-use and the alternative path are spelled out.

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