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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not obligated to restate it. It does add one useful behavioral fact: results are ranked, with best matches returned first. It says nothing about result size, pagination, or truncation behavior beyond that.

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 verb and resource, examples embedded inline, and no filler. Every clause adds information.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers intent semantics and ranking ('best matches first'), which is what an agent most needs. Minor gaps remain around result shape and how 'limit' affects output, but nothing an agent would be misled by.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'kind' dimension by naming both components and blocks and gives intent-flavored semantics for 'query'. It leaves 'tier' (free/pro) and 'limit' (default 10, max 50) entirely to the schema, so the compensation is partial.

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+resource (search Arc components and blocks) with concrete intent examples, which clearly separates it from id-based siblings like get_component. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_components, but the 'by intent' framing implies a semantic/keyword search rather than enumeration.

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 examples ('confirm destructive action', 'date range', 'pricing page') show what kind of inputs are appropriate, which is implicit usage guidance. However, it never states when to search versus browse with list_components, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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