search_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and, importantly, openWorldHint=false, so the safety and locality profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the phrase "bounded filters," hinting at capped result sets, and says nothing about default library scoping, pagination behavior, or what a result entry contains.

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, and the verb plus resource list leads. The trailing enumeration of library types is slightly run-on but earns its place by mirroring the enum.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-coverage, no-output-schema search tool, the description is thin: it never explains the filter taxonomy, defaults, or how results are ordered/paged. An agent can form a query but cannot use the tool fully correctly without guessing at four parameters.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely does not meet it. It loosely maps "words" to `query`, "bounded filters" to `limit`/`offset`, and echoes the `library` enum values, but leaves `free`, `engine`, `category`, and `mediaKind` entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 gives a specific verb ("Search") and enumerates the resource types covered (template, style, background, gradient, UI libraries), which matches the `library` enum and clearly separates it from fetch-style siblings like get_template or verify_template_source. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating scope boundaries, so it is clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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?

Use is implied — keyword search over a curated asset library with filters — but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to siblings such as get_template, compare_templates, or get_template_source. The agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point rather than the retrieval follow-up.

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