spidra_find_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is free. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the tool is free, and with no filter you get every template while the response also returns the site keys and categories available for filtering — a useful return-content disclosure given there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then bolded 'Use it first' / 'Then' sequencing, then the filter mechanics. No filler; the example list in sentence one earns its length by showing the agent what kinds of tasks qualify.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering relative to related tools, filter semantics, and what the response contains. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by illustrating intended filter usage ('reviews' for q, 'google-maps'/'amazon' for site) and by stating the default behavior when no filter is supplied, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource ('Find ready-made templates') and immediately defines what a template is: 'jobs that turn a few inputs into a table of results.' Concrete example domains (Google Maps, Amazon rank, YouTube transcripts) make it unmistakable against siblings like spidra_scrape or spidra_search.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it first when the task is a common data job on a well-known site' and gives the rationale (cheaper and more complete than writing scrapes yourself), which implicitly routes away from spidra_scrape. It also names the exact follow-up sequence: spidra_get_template for inputs, then spidra_run_template.

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