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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description focuses on what comes back and why it matters — noting that anti-patterns are the part a model typically gets wrong from priors. It does not say what happens when the name is unknown (error vs empty result), which is the one behavioral gap remaining.

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?

Two tight sentences: the payload list first, the usage cue second, nothing padded. The long enumeration is dense but every item is a distinct field an agent would want to know about, so it earns its space.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return shape, and it does so thoroughly, plus supplies a usage rationale. Only the failure/not-found behavior is left unspecified, a minor gap for a single-parameter read 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains the three accepted name forms (registry, bare, title), so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full load.

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 ('The full record for one component') and enumerates the payload precisely (description, install command, usage, composition, examples, prop table, anti-patterns). That enumeration implicitly separates it from narrower siblings like get_examples, get_accessibility, and search_components, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit timing cue: 'for before writing code that uses the component.' It identifies the condition that selects this tool, but it does not name alternatives (e.g. search_components to find the name first, or get_examples for a lighter lookup) or state exclusions.

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