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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the heterogeneous return shape ('components and doc pages, each with a snippet and a URL'), which annotations cannot convey. Pagination/result-volume behavior is left to the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it searches, when to reach for it, what comes back. The capability statement is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so ('components and doc pages, each with a snippet and a URL'). For a two-parameter, annotated read-only search tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, with both 'query' (plain-words examples) and 'limit' (defaults to 10, max 20) fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('full-text search across every published PCF control and its documentation') and pins the scope ('every published'). Combined with the 'use it first when you don't know the name' framing, an agent can distinguish this discovery tool from retrieval siblings like get_component and get_doc_page without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: use it first when you know the behavior but not the control's name. That clearly implies the alternative (look up by name via get_component), but it never names that sibling or states any when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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