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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description contributes the substantive detail that the returned code is the same code powering the live site examples, which tells the agent the output is authoritative and executable. It does not warn about payload size or that the optional files filter is the way to narrow an otherwise multi-file response, which is the one behavioral gap left.

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?

Front-loaded claim of what is returned, followed by two labeled routing blocks. Every sentence carries information and the WHEN NOT TO USE lines do double duty by naming siblings.

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 does the necessary work of describing the return bundle, and it covers routing for a two-parameter tool. The remaining gap is that it never signals response size or that files should be used to trim a large multi-file payload, which matters for a tool that returns whole component trees plus tests.

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 a clear enum for component and a documented files filter, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's mention of "helpers it shares with other components and its theme tokens" implies a multi-file bundle, but it adds no explicit guidance on the files parameter beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Returns a shipped component's reference implementation") and then enumerates exactly what the payload contains: the Vue 3 component, its proving tests, shared helpers, and theme tokens. This is clearly distinguishable from get-contract (rules) and get-page (other frameworks) named in the same description.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE blocks name the alternative tools and the exact condition that routes to each: requirements go to get-contract, other-framework usage goes to get-page. An agent can select correctly without inspecting any schema.

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