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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description need not restate it. The description does contribute useful content scope (what categories of data come back), but says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid slug or any access requirements, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

It is a single, dense sentence with the key distinction ('except its source') front-loaded, followed by an enumeration of return contents. Every clause earns its place, though the long comma list is on the heavy side and could be structured as bullets.

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, the description must describe the return payload, and it does so thoroughly (props, variants, npm dependencies, installed files, usage example, layout, related components and recipes). It is only short of complete because it omits error behavior and any hint about pagination or payload size for this fixed-scope fetch.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example ('data-table'), so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no additional meaning about the slug format, case sensitivity, or valid values, which is the expected baseline here.

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 and resource ('Get a Layro component') and then delimits the scope precisely: 'Everything about one component except its source.' The exclusion of source implicitly but clearly separates it from the sibling get_component_code, so an agent can route between them without opening a 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?

Usage is implied by the single-parameter lookup shape (fetch one component by slug), and the 'except its source' clause hints at when to prefer get_component_code instead. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of search_components as the path for discovery, and no note on what happens with an unknown slug.

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