search_templates

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: hybrid search type, language support, and that results are ready-to-use prompts with a recommended model. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences efficiently convey scope, search method, languages, output content, and usage direction. All information is front-loaded, with no redundant or unnecessary words.

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 lacks details on pagination and exact return format, but given the simple parameter set and absence of output schema, the description covers key aspects: what is searched, results contain prompt and model, and next steps. It is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 only 33% (media_type described). The description does not explain query or limit parameters beyond the schema. However, the description's context of search type and output purpose partially compensates for missing parameter details, so it's adequate.

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 searches prompt templates with specifics: 3500+ curated, hybrid text+semantic search, supports Russian/English query. It distinguishes from sibling generation tools by positioning it as a precursor to generate_image/generate_video.

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 explicitly tells when to use (to find prompt templates) and directs the output to generation tools, providing clear context. It does not include exclusions or alternatives, but there are no sibling search tools, so differentiation is implicit.

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