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

Annotations already mark this read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior: it searches only published listings, returns counts and a category breakdown, and exposes the full category vocabulary. This goes beyond the raw schema and gives the agent a clear model of what the call will yield.

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 tight sentences with no fluff. The first explains scope and return contents; the second gives the intended use. All content earns its place.

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?

The description is complete enough for a 6-parameter, read-only search tool with a rich output schema. It covers what is searched, what is returned, and why an agent would call it. Minor omissions like pagination details are already handled by the schema and annotations.

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%, so the input schema already documents every parameter. The description doesn't add much parameter-level meaning, though it does usefully note that the category vocabulary returned is the exact set accepted by the category filter and publish_listing.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the exact resource ('the public template marketplace'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_template, list_my_listings, and publish_listing by emphasizing 'published listings only' and the category-vocabulary return.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: 'Use it to find a schema to start from before writing DBML by hand.' This helps an agent know when to call it, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_template for a single listing.

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