search_community_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context like popularity sorting and community scope, but it does not state the return format, whether an empty search browses all templates, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

One sentence with no filler, action first, and key traits (community scope, popularity sorting) included. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple two-optional-parameter search tool, the description plus schema is adequate for invoking it. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note about the returned template fields or result set would improve completeness.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds only the browse-vs-search distinction, which loosely maps to the optional search parameter but does not materially enrich parameter meaning.

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 an action ('Search or browse') and a specific resource ('community-shared meal templates'), with a useful sorting trait. The 'community-shared' qualifier distinguishes it from siblings such as list_meal_templates and search_community_foods.

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 phrase 'community-shared meal templates' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent needs public/shared templates rather than personal ones. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for correct routing.

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