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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds behavior annotations don't: exactly what each item carries (name plus first sentence) and the four-way taxonomy that governs what comes back. Pagination and result-size behavior remain unstated.

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?

The listing behavior is front-loaded, then the taxonomy, then the alternative-tool routing, all in four short sentences with no filler. Every clause carries either scope, definition, or routing information.

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 browse tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete enough to call correctly and interpret results. It stops short of describing item shape beyond name and first sentence, but nothing essential 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% with an enum on the single optional parameter, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by defining what each enum value actually means — primitives are shadcn components with the Salesforce look, blocks are Salesforce assemblies, helpers turn records into block props — which the enum strings alone do 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?

"List every Wisty UI item by kind, with its name and first sentence" gives a specific verb, resource, and even the shape of each returned entry. The following sentences define the four kinds, so an agent can distinguish this browse tool from get_component/search_components without opening a 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?

"Prefer search_components when you know the job" supplies an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it, implying this tool is the browse-when-you-don't-know path. It does not mention when to follow up with get_component/get_example, but the core routing decision is covered.

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