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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only mild context (it is a lookup that produces a templateId); it does not explain match semantics (substring vs. fuzzy), ranking, or whether text and categoryId are combined.

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 short sentences with the search capability front-loaded and the workflow hint second. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema beyond the brief clarifying example.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the two optional parameters plus annotations are well covered. The only gap is match/filter-combination semantics for a search tool, which an agent might reasonably want before calling.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates that searching is by topic text or category and does not clarify how the two optional filters interact or what happens when both are supplied, so it stays at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource (search survey templates) and scopes the search to topic text or category, with a concrete example query. It also names the downstream consumer template_create_survey_from, though it does not explicitly position itself against other template-reading siblings like template_list or template_get.

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 clear use case ('Use it to find a templateId for template_create_survey_from'), which tells an agent the intended workflow and downstream step. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. when to prefer template_list or template_list_top_suggested instead.

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