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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's job is to say what comes back — which it does concretely: props, variants, npm dependencies, installed files, usage example, layout behavior, pairings, recipes. It omits what happens with an unknown or invalid slug, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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-loaded with the scope constraint and then a dense list where each item carries information, with no filler sentences. It is a verbless run-on fragment rather than a structured sentence, which costs it the top score.

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?

With no output schema, a contents inventory is exactly what the agent needs, and the description supplies it along with the source-code exclusion. Only error and not-found behavior are missing, which is minor for a simple lookup tool.

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% for the single slug parameter, with an example ('data-table') already in the schema. The description adds no format, casing, or resolution rules beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific resource (a single Liro component's full metadata) and draws a sharp boundary against the sibling get_component_code by saying 'except its source'. The retrieval verb is only implied by the tool name, and the phrasing 'when to use it' is ambiguous between the tool's usage and a returned field, so it stops short of a 5.

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 exclusion of source code implicitly routes the agent to get_component_code, which is real but indirect guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus search_components, get_installation, or get_recipe, and no prerequisites or lookup-failure guidance.

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