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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the behavioral load and does add real value: it discloses the exact return payload (id, role, traits, slots, properties, and the catalog pin) and the cost motivation of using a filtered search. It does not state read-only status explicitly or describe empty-result behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 front-loaded sentences: the matching rule and examples come first, then the return/cost rationale. Dense and largely waste-free, though the second sentence is a long run-on that could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still summarizes the payload and the filtering scope (omit catalog to search all). Combined with fully covered parameters, the agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior 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%, so query, token and catalog are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the substring matching behavior and gives example values, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 (Find) and resource (catalog components) plus the matching semantics (name, role or trait, case-insensitive substring). It also names the sibling it is a scoped variant of (ui_builder_list_catalogs), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Explicitly frames the selection condition against ui_builder_list_catalogs: use this to avoid paying for the whole catalog when you only need matches. It stops short of spelling out the inverse rule (when to prefer the full list) or what happens with zero matches, so it is strong but not fully closed.

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