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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool 'returns matches with slugs and install commands', providing some insight into output. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like whether it requires authentication, pagination, or ordering. It adds some value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Search') and the resource ('Assetzaar's marketplace for UI components'). It contains no filler words and conveys both purpose and return type in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential aspects: what to search, the context (marketplace for UI components), and what is returned (matches with slugs and install commands). It could mention edge cases or additional constraints, but it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward search tool.

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 schema describes the single parameter 'query' as 'What to search for', which is generic. The description adds meaning by specifying that the search can be 'by name, category or technology', giving the agent useful context for constructing queries. Since schema coverage is 100%, this extra guidance raises the score above baseline.

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 explicitly states 'Search Assetzaar's marketplace for UI components' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions searchable attributes (name, category, technology). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search' by narrowing scope to marketplace UI components and noting the return type (slugs and install commands).

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?

The description makes clear the tool is for searching UI components in Assetzaar's marketplace, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention any exclusions or alternatives, such as advising to use the generic 'search' for other types of searches. This is clear context but lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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