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

Annotations are empty {} so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it lists both free and Pro components and returns specific metadata (Blade tag, tier, one-line description). It's a read-only catalog operation and the description's framing as 'discover what exists' communicates this well, though it doesn't explicitly state it's non-mutating.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states what is listed and what fields come back; the second gives clear usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriate.

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 list/read operation with one optional enum parameter, fully documented schema, and a descriptive name, the description is complete. It doesn't need an output schema explanation since this is a discovery listing. It tells the agent what it returns, when to use it, and how it differs from search/get siblings.

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%—the single optional 'tier' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its enum values and purpose. The description reinforces the free/Pro concept but adds minimal new semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (list), resource (Aura UI components), and what info is returned (Blade tag, tier, one-line description). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting this is a discovery/overview tool, and mentions the free/Pro tiers which aligns with the sibling get-component-tool and search-components-tool.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'before writing markup' to discover what components exist. This provides clear context for when the agent should invoke it. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context of discovery-before-authoring effectively guides usage versus the sibling tools.

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