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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by listing the returned fields (id, name, description, category, features, start link) and by documenting the downstream handoff to start_website, which compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then returns, then next action. No filler; every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by enumerating the returned fields. For a two-parameter optional search tool with full annotation coverage, nothing essential is missing, though pagination or empty-result behavior is unstated.

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 (query and the enumerated category) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds illustrative keyword examples ('restaurant', 'portfolio', 'online store') and the 'and/or' combination semantics, which is marginal value above 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search WeInc's website templates') with scope modifiers (keywords and/or category), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_templates by being a keyword search rather than an enumeration. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('by keywords ... and/or category') and closes the loop by telling the agent what to do with a result ('Pass a chosen id to start_website as template_id'). It does not explicitly name list_templates as the alternative when browsing without keywords, so it falls short of a full when/when-not rule.

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