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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are discovery-level matches scoped to two specific packages, and exact API details require a second call — which sets expectations for what comes back.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the discovery-first framing is front-loaded ahead of the escalation step. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. For a two-parameter search tool with full annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and the correct follow-up action — nothing an agent needs is missing.

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% and both parameters are fully documented there, including the limit range and query examples. The description's 'by name, title, category or purpose' restates what the query schema already says, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. 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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('DRYL Blazor components'), scoped to the two named packages and to the searchable dimensions (name, title, category, purpose). It is clearly distinguishable from get_component, which the description explicitly names.

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?

States exactly when to reach for this tool ('use this first when you need a component for a job') and what the follow-up is ('then call get_component for its exact API'). The alternative and its trigger condition are both spelled out.

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