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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them by framing this as a search over Xenition's own library. The extra note that results expose form fields and can be completed in place to generate a document is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 resource and scope, then the usage trigger; no filler. The parenthetical example list is a touch long but earns its place by conveying coverage breadth.

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?

With only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema handling the return shape, the description is nearly sufficient. Only the routing decision versus document-creation siblings is left implicit, which is a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema. The description's inline examples ('invoice', 'resume', 'business proposal') loosely illustrate valid queries but largely duplicate what the schema's query description already provides, 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) and resource (library of ready-made forms), and concretely bounds the scope with examples and '~200 more'. It reads clearly against siblings like create_document, though it never names an adjacent tool to sharpen the distinction.

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?

'Use when the user wants to create a specific kind of document or fill out a form' gives a clear triggering context. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. create_document for a blank doc), so the agent must infer the routing boundary itself.

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