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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description focuses on what it alone can add: results are ranked best-first, each match returns name, kind, description, and conditionally a When to use / When not to use line only when the docs contain the query words. That conditional field behavior is genuinely non-obvious and is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ranking, then the query constraint, then the return shape and next step. The third sentence is syntactically tangled ("the line of its When to use or When not to use that does"), costing a point on readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does: it names the returned fields and the conditional doc-line inclusion. Combined with query formulation guidance and the get_component handoff, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up correctly.

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 earns above that by giving worked query examples ("record picker", "picklist", "confirm delete") that show the intended keyword granularity, and by echoing the kind enumeration inline. It does not clarify limit behavior beyond the schema's default of 8.

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 Wisty UI components") plus the ranking behavior, and ties the search dimension to "the job they do" rather than names. That framing distinguishes it from list_components (enumerate) and get_component (read one item) named in the siblings.

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 prescribes query form ("one to three short keywords... not a sentence") with four concrete examples, and closes the loop with "Read a match with get_component." It does not say when to prefer list_components instead of keyword search, which is the remaining gap.

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