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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it is a search/discovery operation that 'does not install anything', which prevents the agent from treating it as a mutating action and routes installation to add_components. It does not describe pagination or result shape, but that is a minor gap against the annotation coverage.

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 densely packed sentences that front-load the core action and then the recommended follow-up workflow, with no filler. Slightly compressed/chained phrasing, but every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter, 75%-covered search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and workflow but says nothing about what the results look like (e.g. scores, matched fields), which it would need to compensate for since no output schema exists. Adequate but with a visible gap.

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 high (75%), with the query, tier, limit, and category parameters already documented or enum-constrained in the schema. The description only adds token/fuzzy matching behavior via its examples, contributing little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fuzzy / token search over registry component names') plus concrete examples ('dialog', 'sheet', 'carousel') that make the target unambiguous. It clarifies it is discovery-only ('Does not install anything'), separating it from an install action, but never names or contrasts the sibling tools get_component and list_components, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 states a clear usage condition and follow-up workflow: 'Prefer this before guessing names, then give the user npx ply-ui-cli add <name> (or local stdio add_components).' This tells the agent both when to reach for this tool and what to do with the result. It stops short of naming when to use get_component or list_components instead, so alternatives are not fully covered.

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