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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by stating the return format: 'Returns template IDs, names, and previews.' However, it does not disclose other behavioral nuances like pagination, rate limits, or how previews are represented. This is adequate but not rich, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence establishes the action, the second covers filtering and results. Every word serves a purpose; there is no fluff or redundancy. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, read-only, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It covers purpose, optional filters, and return content. It could mention subcategory filtering explicitly, but the schema fills that gap. The description is complete enough for this low-complexity tool.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (category and subcategory) with examples, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds a minor detail by listing an additional category example 'living-panels' not present in the schema, but it does not explain subcategory usage. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse the DesignForYou template catalog.' It specifies the verb 'browse' and the resource 'template catalog', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_template and recommend_template by focusing on browsing existing templates. It also mentions optional filtering and return values, making the scope unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: browsing the template catalog with optional category/subcategory filters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is so distinct from siblings (e.g., create_template, recommend_template) that the intended usage is evident. Missing explicit 'when not to use' guidance prevents a perfect score.

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