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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the free-vs-Pro content split and the fact that Pro source is only returned if the server was configured with an Eased Pro token header. That conditional payload difference materially affects what the agent can do with the result.

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-loads the payload summary ('Everything about one Eased component as Markdown') and then spends its second sentence on the free/Pro distinction, which is the one non-obvious fact. Dense but every clause carries information; the long enumeration of fields is somewhat list-like but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so thoroughly (Markdown format, which fields, when source code is included). For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already defines the slug format with examples ('button', 'hover-card') and its provenance from list_components/search_components. The description does not need to restate it, and adds no contradicting param info.

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 ('Get an Eased component') and enumerates exactly what comes back: title, description, tier, README docs, install command, dependencies, plus source/demo for free components. The singular 'one component' framing differentiates it from list_components and search_components without needing their schemas.

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: it is the fetch-by-slug step that follows list_components/search_components, which the slug parameter description references. There is no explicit 'use this when you already have a slug, use search_components when you don't' routing statement, so an agent must infer the workflow.

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