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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses key behavior: 'Returns metadata only, no HTML' and that `since` filters to layouts added after the date. It does not mention sorting, pagination, or rate limits, but the disclosed return-type and filtering behavior are significant and add value beyond the 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 sentences with no filler: the first gives the core purpose, the second covers the `since` use case, and the third redirects to suggest_deck. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

The description covers the main purpose, return type, a key parameter, and an alternative tool, which is adequate for basic use. However, it leaves gaps: no distinction from get_layout, no semantics for query/category/limit, no output format details, and no pagination/sorting behavior, which matters more because there is no output schema.

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 only 25% (only `since` has a schema description). The tool description reinforces `since` but does not explain what `query` matches, what `category` values are valid, or how `limit` behaves beyond the schema defaults. With such low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the three undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Search or filter the layout catalog') with a clear resource and scope ('find a specific layout'), and adds the 'what is new' role via the `since` parameter. It also distinguishes itself from suggest_deck by explicitly naming that sibling, making its purpose 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it to search/filter the catalog and for 'what is new' questions with `since`. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use rule: if the user wants a whole deck, call suggest_deck first instead, naming the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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