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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that query wording materially changes match quality (a stated scoring delta) and describing the return shape (id plus an editable link). Pagination or ordering behavior is not addressed.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is actionable guidance. The catalogue-register rule is stated once and then restated with two examples, so there is mild redundancy that could be tightened.

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 not be spelled out. Query composition is covered thoroughly; limit and segment are documented in the schema. The only real gap is the absence of routing guidance against the sibling tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by adding rationale and a worked example for how the query string should be composed, which the schema merely asserts in one line. It adds little for limit or segment beyond what the schema 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?

A specific verb and resource ("Find design templates") plus a note that results carry an id to fill, which implicitly separates it from create_designs, fill_template and upload_images. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

The description is heavily focused on how to phrase the query, which is useful, but it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to fill_template or create_designs. Usage is implied by the search framing rather than explicitly scoped.

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