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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that the payload includes the full source of every installed file, which signals a potentially large response, and the schema's include_source default reinforces that. No mention of response size limits or pagination, keeping it below 5.

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 with zero filler: the return payload leads, and the input prerequisite follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 two-parameter read-only retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description compensates for the absent output schema by enumerating the returned fields. The remaining gap is the unresolved overlap with get_install_instructions, which the description does not address.

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%, including the slug example and the include_source opt-out explanation, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline is 3. The description adds only the provenance of the slug (it comes from search_components) and corroborates that source files are part of the default response.

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 names a specific resource (one uibrik component) and enumerates exactly what comes back: description, install commands, npm packages, import line, props, and full file source. That is far more precise than the title alone. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_install_instructions, even though it also returns install commands.

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?

"Use a slug from search_components" gives a concrete prerequisite and routes the agent to the correct sibling for obtaining input. It gives no exclusion, however, so an agent must still guess why it would call get_install_instructions instead of this tool when only install data is needed.

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