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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the result is a full canonical JSX source, includes a header stamp with macrostructure/theme/states, and is designed for copy-paste customization.

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 focused sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core value proposition is front-loaded, and the usage-oriented note ('Copy-pasteable; tweak tokens') earns its place without bloat.

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 two-parameter, read-only, non-destructive tool with full schema coverage)Skip? The description fully explains what the agent gets and how to use it; no output schema is needed because the return is described as JSX source. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, with id explained as 'Reference id within that type' and type as a categorized enum. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies: the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('full canonical JSX source for one reference component'), and adds a concrete detail about the 'header stamp naming its macrostructure / theme / states'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_reference_components or compare.

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 implies a clear use case: retrieve complete component source to copy and tweak for a target brand. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like find_similar or find_examples_for_macrostructure, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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