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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: fuzzy/case-insensitive substring matching on names. It also frames the result as selecting an item for a follow-up fetch. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences: the first defines behavior, the second gives the intended workflow. Every phrase contributes; 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?

For a one-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers what is searched, how matching works, and how it fits into the workflow. It does not detail the result shape, but the absence of an output schema makes a brief note slightly useful, not critical.

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 query parameter description already explains it matches against component and block names. The description reinforces this without adding significant new semantics.

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 clearly identifies a specific action (fuzzy-search) and resource (Cronus UI registry components and blocks), and specifies that matching is by name. It relates the tool to get_component, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools like list_components or list_blocks, relying partly on the tool name.

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?

It gives concrete guidance: use this to find the right item before fetching its source with get_component. However, it does not clarify when to choose this over list_components/list_blocks or match_catalog, leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.

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