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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the exact shape of each catalog entry and the 'creates its own GVC' attribute, which tells the agent what install-time side effects to expect.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns first, when to use it second, next-step routing third. No filler, and the highest-value routing cue is front-loaded.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value documentation is optional, yet the description still summarizes the payload. Combined with complete annotations and a documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single `filter` parameter is fully documented in the schema (case-insensitive substring over name/category/description). The description's 'Pass `filter` to narrow' merely restates that, so the 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 and resource ('List the Control Plane Template Catalog') and enumerates the returned fields (name, category, latest version, self-creating GVC flag), which cleanly separates it from get_template, list_installed_templates, and install_template.

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?

Explicitly says to 'reach for this first whenever the user wants a database, cache, queue, or other common service,' gives concrete examples plus the related add_database tool, and specifies the follow-up step ('Then call get_template for versions and the example values.yaml').

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