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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: the license step for Mlola Pro items and the stylesheet link + script variant for a page with no build step.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the one conditional rule. No filler, though it packs several sub-behaviors into one clause chain.

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 readOnlyHint, full schema coverage, one optional param and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the key conditional. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 there is only one optional parameter, so the schema carries the format burden. The description still adds meaning by explaining that omitting names yields the standalone setup and that supplying them switches to per-item install output.

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 purpose: returning the commands to run in a project to add components, blocks, pages or templates. Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_component (fetch a component) and search_components (find names), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

'Leave names out for the setup alone' is the one usage rule and it is clear, implying names should be supplied to add specific items. However there is no explicit routing to search_components (only the schema mentions it) and no statement of when not to use this tool.

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