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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the rich return data (description, props, examples, semantic layer) and acceptable parameter formats, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 paragraph that contains all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be breaking into bullet points for readability, but it remains clear.

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 absence of output schema, the description compensates by listing the types of information returned (description, props, examples, semantic layer). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's output, though it omits potential error handling.

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%, but the description adds specific guidance on acceptable parameter values (e.g., 'bpm.metric' or 'metric'), which is not in the schema. This clarifies input format beyond what the schema definition offers.

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 clearly states the verb ('retourne') and resource ('détail complet d'un composant'), listing specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it is to be used after 'list/search' to get full detail.

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 states when to use: after 'list/search' and before generating code. This provides clear context and differentiates from sibling tools like list_components and search_components.

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