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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are ranked by relevance, how many are returned, or whether pagination exists. Beyond enumerating content types, no behavioral trait is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, then illustrative examples. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition is close to viable, but it stops short of describing what a result looks like or how results are ordered. For a search tool with no output schema, that return-shape gap is a real completeness hole.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The query examples in the description do add a little meaning beyond the schema's 'What the UI should do or look like', but nothing is said about how 'section' or 'free_only' interact with the query, so no credit above baseline.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') and enumerates the resource types it covers (components, screens, blocks, illustrations, motion effects), which maps cleanly onto the section enum. It separates itself from get_component/list_components by virtue of being query-driven, though it never names those siblings to draw the line explicitly.

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?

Two concrete query examples ('chat input with model picker', 'onboarding checklist') imply the intended usage pattern well. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_components or get_component, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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