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 safety profile is fully covered. The description's added value is disclosing what each result contains (identity, stack, preview, license), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about result count caps (limit max 10) or whether previews are URLs, so it stops short of rich behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource come first and the result-content list follows compactly.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only search with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers both what is searched and what comes back, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit behavior and any notion of result ordering or pagination.

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 50%: query is documented in the schema itself, but limit has no description anywhere, and the tool description never mentions limiting or result-set size. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so with a coverage gap it under-compensates.

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?

"Find complete Liro React / Next.js templates" gives a specific verb and a well-scoped resource, and the colon list states what each result covers (identity, stack, live preview, licensing). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_template, which would be needed for a 5, but an agent can tell it is the discovery/list tool rather than the single-item fetch.

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?

Usage is only implied: "Find" plus the query parameter's note that leaving it out lists all templates suggests search-and-list semantics. There is no statement about when to prefer this over get_template or search_components, and no exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent must infer the routing.

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