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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world (openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the scope of the corpus searched ('complete catalog across components, animated components, blocks, dashboards, and templates'), but says nothing about ranking, result ordering, or truncation behavior for a search tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence, verb first, no filler or repetition. It is tight, though the tightness comes partly from omitting information an agent would need rather than from ruthless editing.

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 search tool with four parameters, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage, the description should clarify result shape, ordering, and the undocumented 'category' parameter. Annotations cover safety, but the missing behavioral and parameter context leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 25% — just 'query' is documented, and its description already supplies the natural-language example. The description merely re-lists the kind values that the schema enum already enumerates, and adds nothing about 'category' or about how 'limit' interacts with result ranking.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Search the complete Watermelon UI catalog') with the searchable domains enumerated, so the agent knows it is a search tool rather than a fetch tool. However, it never contrasts itself with the closest siblings, list_catalog_entries and catalog_summary, which also surface catalog content.

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 description says what it searches but never states when to choose it over list_catalog_entries, get_inspiration, or catalog_summary. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no query-phrasing guidance beyond what the schema already carries.

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