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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds value: it lists exactly what each result carries (template_id, name, size, animated flag, preview URL, open link) and the ordering rule. It does not discuss result-set size, empty results, or failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 with the core purpose and filter semantics, then routing guidance. It is dense in a good way, though the final workflow sentence about list_pages/get_design could be trimmed since get_design was already mentioned.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows what it gets back. Combined with zero required parameters and a complete usage story, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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, but the description genuinely extends the schema by defining what `query` accepts — an exact template id or words from a name, description, or campaign topic — which the schema's 'at least 3 characters' does not convey. It also ties `limit` to `page` as pagination, adding modest context beyond the field docs.

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 (find templates) plus scope (the workspace's templates) and ordering (newest first). It clearly separates itself from create_design and get_design in the same breath, so an agent can pick it without inspecting siblings.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it (user names an existing template or wants to start from one) and two alternatives with their triggering conditions: create_design for starting fresh, get_design when a page_id is already known. It even chains the follow-up step (list_pages with the template_id).

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