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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so thoroughly: free but rate-limited to 32 calls/day, requires a registered account key, spends no credits, and crucially warns that output contains raw EJS markers and is not build-ready. This gives the agent significant behavioral context beyond a simple read operation.

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 dense but efficient. Each sentence earns its place: primary result, usage rationale, cost/rate limits, auth requirement, and the critical build-readiness caveat. The important warning is capitalized and near the end, while the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, why to use it, limitations, authentication requirements, and how it differs from build-ready alternatives. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the component parameter with a version example. The description adds the concept of 'exact, unrendered source files' but does not add version syntax or formatting details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Returns the exact, unrendered source files for one catalog component.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling/related tools by framing its purpose as inspecting or comparing before purchase, which clearly separates it from get_scaffold, purchase_scaffold, and generate_scaffold.

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 tells the agent when to use it ('Use this to inspect or compare a component before buying a scaffold') and when not to ('Do not copy get_component output directly into a project. Use purchase_scaffold or generate_scaffold for rendered, build-ready files.'). This is direct, actionable routing guidance.

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