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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses what comes back (slugs with one-line description, kind, access tier, version), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention limits or result-set size behavior, keeping it short of a 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?

Three tightly written sentences with zero filler: purpose, return shape, and the imperative usage rule. The most actionable instruction is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 enumerating the returned fields. It covers purpose, usage trigger, and result shape for a 5-parameter search tool; only edge behavior (empty results, paging/limit effects) is unaddressed.

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 60%, so the schema carries most of the parameter burden (kind, access, limit, category, query). The description adds the language constraint ('English keywords') and elaborates the resource kinds, but does not clarify limit semantics or the category relationship beyond the schema's own pointer to list_categories.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus a precisely scoped resource set (components, blocks, hooks, helpers) with a search modality ('by keywords'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling retrieval tools like get_component or get_block, which fetch one known item rather than search across kinds.

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?

'Call this before writing any UI' gives a clear trigger condition for using the tool. It lacks an explicit alternative/naming of the follow-up (e.g., 'then use get_component with the returned slug'), so it is strong context without full when/when-not routing.

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