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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's only addition is a hint that results include template layouts and preview_url images, plus an unexplained 'chosen/delegated' state that is never defined. Nothing is said about result ordering, pagination against the limit cap, or what happens when ids and query are combined.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy: two ungrammatical fragments with no leading statement of what the tool returns or requires. Nothing is front-loaded, so the agent must reverse-engineer intent from the tool name.

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?

An eight-parameter tool with one required field, two enums, a 10-item id cap and a 30-item limit cap, with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, demands a far richer description. The description supplies neither parameter meaning nor return shape nor the meaning of the 'chosen/delegated' workflow it references.

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 must carry all meaning and carries none. The words 'layout', 'preview_url' and 'source' loosely gesture at kind/include_source but never explain ids, category, build_type, limit, or the workspace requirement. An agent cannot determine which filters are mutually exclusive or how the two enums interact with the free-text query.

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 text is a pair of sentence fragments, 'Template layouts/preview_url images' and 'Read selected source', rather than a stated verb+resource. An agent can guess this searches a component library, but nothing states what a component is or how search criteria combine. It is not distinguishable from siblings by anything other than the tool name.

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?

'Offer 3 component choices unless chosen/delegated' prescribes an agent workflow step rather than when to call the tool versus alternatives. No sibling such as layouts_get, preview_get, or files_search is referenced as an alternative. The trigger condition for using search at all is left to inference.

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