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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: no authentication is required, it only searches templates not yet imported, and its slug output is intentionally not usable for PDF generation. This goes well beyond the structured annotation information.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose is stated first, then filtering and return details, then alternatives and the critical workflow warning. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists the exact returned fields and explains the important limitation around PDF generation. It also covers authentication, scope, and routing to sibling alternatives, making the tool fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke it 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%, so the schema already documents the query, limit, and category parameters. The description reinforces that query performs partial matching on title/description/tags/category and adds the broader search scope, but it does not add substantially new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('search'), a specific resource ('public template gallery'), and a clear scope ('templates not yet imported into workspace'). It also enumerates the match fields and the returned fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: use list_templates/search for existing workspace designs instead. It also gives the critical follow-up workflow: the returned slug cannot be used for PDF generation, and copy_gallery_template must be called first before passing the designId to get_design_parameters/generate_pdf_sync.

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