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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: what fields come back (names, tiers, one-line descriptions) and that results are summaries rather than full docs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the capability and scope, then the return shape, then the next-step pointer. The parenthetical example queries are the highest-value tokens in the whole description and are placed early.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields. Minor gaps remain: no mention of result ordering or relevance ranking, and no hint that an empty result is possible.

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%, so query, tier and limit are already documented in the schema, including the tier inheritance semantics. The description adds only that the query is matched by intent ('by what they do') with illustrative phrases, which is modest incremental value over the schema's 'what you're looking for, in words.'

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 (search) plus the exact resource set (components, hooks, blocks and patterns) and the retrieval mode: by what they do, with concrete example queries. This distinguishes it cleanly from list_components (enumeration) and get_component_docs (single-item detail).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: use this to find candidates, then 'read one with get_component_docs.' No guidance on when to prefer suggest_components or list_components, though the intent-based framing implies the boundary.

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