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

With empty annotations, the description takes on the responsibility of explaining behavior. It fully discloses the output contents: 'its Blade tag, tier, a copy-pasteable usage example, and the complete Markdown documentation including all props.' This goes beyond the input schema and makes the tool's read-only nature apparent through its getter language, though it does not explicitly mention lack of side effects.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then details of the output. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a straightforward retrieval tool. The sibling context confirms its role in the family, making the description adequately complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'name' parameter. The tool description adds value by reiterating that the name must be a single component's name and by providing concrete examples ('button', 'date-picker'), which reinforces the expected format and context.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get full details for a single Aura UI component by name' and enumerates the exact data returned (Blade tag, tier, usage example, Markdown docs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-components-tool or search-components-tool, which involve multiple components or discovery.

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?

Provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Call this before generating Aura markup for a component.' This indicates when to use the tool but does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., search-components-tool) for scenarios where the component name is unknown. The contextual phrase 'by name' implies that this is for known component names, giving clear if slightly implicit guidance.

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