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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it searches a curated catalog of 61 patterns and returns English/Chinese names, definitions, the best-matching Q&A, and catalog URLs, though it does not discuss no-result or ranking behavior.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core capability, followed by illustrative examples and a crisp usage sentence. It is appropriately sized with no wasted wording.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the search input style, the catalog scope, and the key return values an agent would need.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including limit. The description adds meaningful query semantics by showing that the query may be a plain-language description, question, term, and may be in English or Chinese.

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: finds the conventional name of a UI element or design pattern from a plain-language description, question, or term. It gives concrete examples and clearly scopes the catalog search, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_ui_pattern or list_ui_patterns.

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 says to use it when someone asks what a UI element is called or what a UI/UX term means. That gives clear positive usage context, though it does not mention when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead.

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