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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload ('Returns names, descriptions, and dependencies') and implies a read-only search operation. However, it omits any details about pagination, rate limits, or side effects. For a search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean and direct.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it covers what can be searched, what is returned, and a link to the sibling tool for sources. It lacks details on result limits or behavior when multiple filters are combined, but these are not critical for basic usage. Given the absence of annotations, the description is reasonably complete.

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 input schema only describes 'query'; the description compensates by naming all three parameters ('keyword, category, or tier') and explicitly linking them to search criteria. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not explain how parameters combine when multiple are provided.

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 tool searches Crucible's animated React components by keyword, category, or tier. It specifies a concrete verb ('Search'), resource, and scope, and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_component tool by explicitly directing users to that tool for source code.

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 provides clear context by stating the search dimensions and explicitly names an alternative: 'Use get_component to fetch source.' This gives a concrete follow-up action, though it does not discuss when to avoid this tool in favor of get_usage or install_instructions. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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