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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: which fields are matched (title, slug, interaction verb, description, README docs) and that results are ordered best-match-first.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, then matching behavior, then the optional filter, then the next step. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, match fields, ranking, filtering, and the follow-up tool. It stops short of saying what a result record looks like or how results are limited/paginated, which an agent might want.

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 the industry enum is exhaustively documented in the schema itself, including per-value glosses. The description restates the industry narrowing and adds one illustrative query/industry pairing, which is only marginal value over the structured field.

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 (Find) and resource (Eased components) and immediately grounds it with four concrete need examples like "tooltip" and "tabs with a sliding indicator". It also names the follow-up sibling get_component, so the agent can place it in the workflow without opening a schema.

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?

Explains what to do after searching ("Follow up with get_component for docs and source") and when to add the industry filter. It does not explicitly contrast with list_components or say when not to search, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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