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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses the return shape (name, tier, one-line description), but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or pagination behavior — relevant for a search endpoint that can list everything.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is searchable and how, the second covers the return payload. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (name, tier, one-line description), which is genuinely needed. It falls slightly short on result-volume behavior and kind-filter semantics, but is adequate for a simple read-only search.

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 only 33%: query is documented but kind and tier are not. The description partially compensates by naming the tier values (free or Mlola Pro) and restating the query semantics, but never explains what kind='block' vs 'page' vs 'template' filters, leaving the enum undocumented in prose.

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 (Find) plus the exact resources (components, blocks, pages, templates) and the search key (what they do), with concrete example queries. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_component, which is clearly a name-based lookup rather than a discovery search.

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 phrase "by what they do" implies the agent should use this when it knows a capability but not a name, and the schema's note that an empty query lists everything hints at the browse case. However, no alternative (check_markup, get_component, get_design_rules) is named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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