Search templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results reflect 'latest versions' and the returned name is the input to project creation, closing the search-to-create loop. It doesn't mention result ordering or network/rate-limit behavior, which is a minor gap.

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?

Two tight sentences plus two examples, with the core purpose front-loaded and the workflow handoff immediately after. The examples are short and directly earn their place by demonstrating query construction rather than restating the schema.

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?

For a 2-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, query construction and next steps. The only shortfall is that it never says what comes back (e.g., names plus descriptions), which matters somewhat given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 50% — query is documented but limit has no description at all. The description compensates well for query by giving concrete mappings ('IEEE paper' -> query='ieee'), clarifying that natural-language phrases should be reduced to keywords. The undocumented limit parameter is left unaddressed, keeping this below a 5.

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 (search) and resource (Typst Universe templates), plus the scope 'latest versions' and the intended outcome ('to start a project from'). No sibling does anything comparable, and the description explicitly names the downstream tool typst_create_project, making the role obvious.

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?

Clearly says when to use it (starting a project from a template) and what to do next (pass the chosen name to typst_create_project). It doesn't need to name alternatives since no sibling search tool exists, but there's no explicit statement of when not to use it, such as when you already know the template name.

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