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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the return shape: ranked matches, each with a preview link, which no structured field provides.

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 filler, and the capability statement is front-loaded before the usage trigger. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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 one-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it searches, what it returns, and when to reach for it. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is already documented with examples. The description's "by industry, personality or a description of the interface" loosely restates the accepted query dimensions but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 (searches the design-system catalog) plus what it returns (ranked matches with a preview link). It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like find-icon-library, get-inspiration, or extract-design-system.

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?

"Use it when the user wants a design system or a visual direction for an app, site, page, dashboard or presentation" gives a concrete triggering condition. There are no stated when-not conditions and no named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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