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

Annotations already disclose the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, so the description appropriately adds non-redundant behavioral detail: it returns example line items, a page a person can open, localized results, and a concrete scale (133 templates). This is helpful context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 description is three short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and filters; the second summarizes return content; the third gives useful scope context. It is concise overall, though the phrase 'in the language asked for' is slightly redundant with the language parameter.

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 search tool with five optional parameters, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, this description is substantially complete: it covers search dimensions, return contents, localization, and the size of the template set. The remaining gaps, such as default values or matching behavior, are already covered by the fully documented input schema.

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?

The schema fully describes all five parameters, so the description is not required to add detailed parameter semantics. It does restate 'words, document type or category' for query, docType, and category, but adds no new format, default, or interplay information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('QuoteBill templates'), and the main filter dimensions ('words, document type or category'). It also tells what is returned (example line items and an openable page), which clarifies the search intent. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_template, but the search-vs-get distinction is reasonably inferable.

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 purpose itself implies when to use it: when the agent needs to find templates by words, type, or category. It gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, such as get_template for a specific known template or list_guides for guide templates.

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