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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states what the tool searches, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, result limits, pagination, or case sensitivity. The minimal description leaves the agent uninformed about key behaviors.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It effectively conveys the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, hence 4 instead of 5.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context such as return format, ordering, or any restrictions. It lacks completeness, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect from the output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'query' is searched across name, title, or description, but does not explain the 'type' parameter (even though it has an enum). The semantic contribution is partial and insufficient for the agent to use parameters correctly without additional inference.

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 (search), resource (BlatUI components, blocks, charts), and search criteria (by name, title or description). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_component (retrieve a specific component) and list_components (list all).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to use search_registry vs list_components for finding components. The description lacks context for tool selection.

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