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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds cost/latency ('Cheap'), output content (system vs. custom components), and the closed 'shipped' scope, which goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences: purpose/fields, cost/usage context, and filter parameters. Everything earns its place and the core action 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 simple list tool with two optional enum params, no required arguments, and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, that filtering exists, and that it's cheap. Nothing essential for a correct first call is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It says both parameters are optional filters and relates tech to the iOS-system-vs-own-component distinction, but it does not explain what category/tech values mean or how the filters affect results; the enums remain underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the shipped @opointo/ui components,' and names the returned fields (slug, purpose, category, rendering implementation). It is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_component or find_component, relying on the list-all framing to separate them.

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?

It gives clear usage context with 'Cheap, and a good first call,' signaling when an agent should reach for it early in a workflow. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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