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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the return payload is slugs rather than full components, and empty-query behavior is category-browse. It stops short of saying how results are ranked or how many categories a query may match, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

The purpose and the 'use this first' directive are front-loaded in the opening two sentences, followed by examples and the return contract. Every sentence carries distinct information; the four examples are short and directly reduce query-formulation errors.

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 zero-required-parameter search tool with no output schema, the definition supplies the missing return-value information (slugs, fed to get_component), the invocation trigger, and query-formulation guidance. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by giving concrete query examples ('pricing', 'animated button', 'uptime chart', 'text reveal') that reveal expected phrasing, and by specifying the query/category interaction rule ('Leave query empty to list everything in a category'), which the schema does not state.

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 ('Search uibrik's animated React components') and scopes it by technology stack (Tailwind CSS v4, Motion, WebGL) and by intent ('by what they do'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_component by explaining it 'Returns slugs to pass to get_component', so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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 this first whenever the task is building or restyling UI in a React project' gives an explicit ordering rule against siblings, and 'Returns slugs to pass to get_component' names the follow-up tool. The clause 'Leave query empty to list everything in a category' also covers the browsing case that would otherwise compete with list_categories.

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