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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does establish that this is a lookup whose result is names rather than full component payloads, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about result counts, ranking/relevance behavior, whether an empty result is possible, or any auth or rate constraints, leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and examples, ending with the downstream handoff. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

Three optional parameters, all fully documented in the schema, and no output schema means the description must say something about returns — which it does ('Returns names to pass to get_component'). That covers what an agent needs to call it and act on the result; only the absence of result-volume or ranking expectations keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description implies intent-based querying and mentions the free-vs-paid distinction implicitly through the library framing, but adds no syntax, format, or combination semantics for query, category, or freeOnly beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a scoped resource ('animated UI components in the Foundry44 library') and the query style it accepts ('by what they do'). It also names the sibling handoff ('names to pass to get_component'), so an agent can separate search from fetch without opening either 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?

The description establishes the search-then-fetch workflow by stating the output feeds get_component, and the two examples ('text reveal on scroll', 'cursor glow') show the intended query style. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g. when a component name is already known and get_component should be called directly), so it misses explicit exclusions.

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