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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the shape of the response, per-platform rendering differences, required root providers, and 'runtime rules that stop it rendering blank' — useful for an agent deciding whether the call is sufficient.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that lists exactly what comes back with no filler. Slightly list-like and could be scannable as bullets, 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 carries the full burden of describing the return payload and does so thoroughly — props, defaults, allowed values, platform rendering, providers, dependencies and runtime rules. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 100%, and the description adds no information about slug or platform beyond the schema (the enum and 'only the rules that hold there' note live in the schema itself). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear resource and scope: it returns everything needed to write a call site for one component, enumerating props/types/defaults, platform rendering, providers, dependencies and runtime rules. An agent can distinguish it from find_component (discovery) and install_component (mutation/installation), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 framing 'everything needed to write a correct call site' implies pre-use before installing or emitting a component, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as find_component. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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