n8n_search_public_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the source is official and current, and the result is summaries-only, which prevents an agent from expecting full template payloads. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but these are not necessary for such a light read operation.

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?

Three short sentences carry source, freshness, result type, and the next step. There is no filler, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what is searched, that results are summaries, and how to follow up. It would be more complete if it also told the agent when to use list_workflow_templates/get_workflow_template instead, but the description is adequate for correct selection and invocation.

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?

The query parameter is already described in the schema as 'What the workflow should do', and the description's 'Search... templates' reinforces that. The limit parameter is left without prose, but its name plus the numeric constraints in the schema make it safe to infer. The description adds no real param detail beyond the schema, and with 50% schema coverage it does not fully compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the exact resource ('official n8n.io workflow templates'), and clarifies scope ('thousands, always current', 'Returns summaries only'). It is clearly distinguishable from the import tool by naming it explicitly as a follow-up, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent what to do after searching: 'Then use n8n_import_public_template to copy one into the instance.' That is clear workflow context. It does not, however, state when to prefer n8n_list_workflow_templates or n8n_get_workflow_template for non-public or installed templates, so exclusions are missing.

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