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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful return-content context the annotations do not carry — that the response includes props, types, required markers, code examples, usage, alternatives and keyboard handling — which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single, densely packed sentence with the core action front-loaded and the payload enumeration trailing after it. Every element earns its place, though the long parenthetical list makes it slightly harder to scan than a short structured breakdown would be.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so thoroughly. The remaining gap is the naming/format semantics of the required `name` argument, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong on the first call.

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 50%: `version` is documented in the schema, while `name` has no schema description. The description partially compensates by clarifying that `name` accepts either a family or a member and giving concrete examples (Button, CardHeader, D3Chart), but it does not state the accepted string format (kebab-case, path-like, casing) or how family vs. member resolution differs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Devolve') with a precise resource (the real API of a component family or documented member) and enumerates what comes back: props, types, required flags, code examples, usage, alternatives and keyboard behavior. It is unambiguous what the tool retrieves, though it does not name any sibling to distinguish itself from refy_search.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'de uma família ou de um membro documentado (ex.: Button, CardHeader, D3Chart)' shows the two granularities the tool accepts, which hints at when to call it. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over refy_search or refy_collections, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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