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

With no annotations, the description transparently discloses key behavioral traits: data is 'read from the LIVE DOM', is 'measured, not guessed', and includes 'the real :hover state'. It also notes the fallback when a component type isn't found. This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it omits any mention of rate limits or authorization.

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 description is dense with high-value details, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information (return contents, use case, data provenance, error fallback). Slightly long but justified.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, this description covers return contents (anatomy, image_url, design tokens, fallback types), data source (live DOM), and usage context. It lacks an explicit response format or error handling details beyond fallback, but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions, but the description compensates with an example call get_component("Linear", "Button") that maps site to product name and component_type to component type. It also clarifies the fallback behavior when component_type is invalid, adding pragmatic meaning to both parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a fully specified UI component from a product's live DOM, including detailed styling properties, hover state, image URL, and design tokens. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on 'build a <component> like <product>' with a concrete example.

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?

It explicitly states the intended use case ('Use this for "build a <component> like <product>"') and provides an example call. While it doesn't enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is unambiguous and includes error fallback behavior.

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