template_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts the annotations do not: the catalog version (v0.20) and that results are paginated. It says nothing about result caps or ordering defaults, so it stays at a middling score.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description leaves most of what an agent needs unanswered: which filters combine, what sort default applies, and what a result looks like. Only the catalog scope and pagination are conveyed.

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?

There are 5 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes no per-parameter documentation. The word 'pagination' loosely gestures at limit/offset, but sort, search and category are never explained, and enum values like 'popular' versus 'newest' versus 'name' go unmentioned.

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 (the Figranium v0.20 template catalog), and signals scope via 'pagination'. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling template_get, which retrieves a single template, so an agent has to infer the split between list-search and fetch-by-id.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative tool. With template_get and the task/schedule/cabinet families as siblings, the agent gets no routing help for choosing template_search.

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