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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: default board behavior, account-wide fallback, and pagination signals (hasMore/nextQuery). It does not disclose rate limits or full response contents, but the safety profile is already declared.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences each add scoping, filtering, or pagination guidance without repetition. Minor formatting whitespace and the slightly roundabout account-wide sentence keep it from a perfect score.

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 no output schema, the description provides a helpful pointer to hasMore/nextQuery in the response and covers all major call modes. It could be more complete by describing the shape of returned template entries or the default page size, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It successfully maps all six parameters: q as text search, board_id as board scoping, template_type and is_premade as filters, and cursor/limit as pagination controls. It stops short of enumerating allowed template_type values, but it covers the core semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Getsign template gallery entries.' It goes on to clarify the default board scope and account-wide scope, which helps distinguish it from sister tools like getsign_list_workflows_for_board and getsign_select_template_for_workflow.

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 explains when to pass board_id (current board) versus omit it (account-wide search), and instructs combining q, template_type, and is_premade as needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the scope guidance is clear and actionable.

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