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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value the annotations cannot: results are ranked, and the catalog may intentionally return nothing when the platform's native control is preferable — a non-obvious negative-result contract.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler, leading with what the tool does and the ranking behavior before the omit-need shortcut. Slightly dense phrasing ('ships nothing on purpose') but every clause earns its place.

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 usefully sketches what comes back (ranked components, purpose text, whether a real system control renders). The only notable gap is the unexplained `category` enum, which the schema also fails to document.

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 50%, and the description only compensates for `need` (omit it to list all). The `category` enum (controls/chrome/surfaces) is left entirely undefined in both schema and description, so the agent must guess what those buckets mean.

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 component') scoped to a plain-language UI need, and adds the distinctive behavior of ranked results plus deliberate-absence signaling. It implicitly separates itself from the id-lookup sibling (get_component) but never names it, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 gives one concrete usage rule: omitting `need` lists every component with purpose and system-control status. Beyond that it offers no when-to-use versus alternatives guidance or prerequisites for the ranked search path.

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