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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly true, non-destructive), so the description can spend its budget on behavior — and it does: ranking weights, tie-break rule, score-zero dropping, and popularity fallback for empty input. It stops short of return-shape/pagination detail, but the added ranking semantics are genuinely non-obvious.

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?

Front-loaded, but the opener 'Bidirectional onboarding: the registry talks back' is tonal filler rather than specification, and the description is long for three optional parameters. The ranking-weight parenthetical is the one dense detail that earns its place; the rest could be tightened.

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 burden and does disclose the ranked candidate list, tie-break, and dropped zero-score results, which is adequate for a search tool. Missing only item-level field detail or result-count/limit interaction, a minor gap for a read-only discoverer.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by explaining that q is matched against name (×3), tags (×2), and description (×1) — meaning the agent knows what kind of text will actually match. It also clarifies that empty q falls back to popularity, which the schema hints at but doesn't fully explain.

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 and resource — suggest candidate CSD templates from a plain-English query — and gives concrete example queries. An agent can distinguish it from sibling lookups like get_popular_csd_templates or search_capabilities without opening any 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?

Explains the intended context (onboarding, describe what you're trying to set up) and the fallback for an empty query, and routes the agent forward ('pass the chosen type to pcc-author-integration'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_popular_csd_templates, which is implied only via the empty-query fallback.

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