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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the return format (Markdown docs) and the sections included, plus a meaningful conditional behavior: usage examples are included for Free parts, and for Pro parts only when the caller has a licence. This adds useful context about output content and licensing constraints.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a tight list of included content. Every clause adds useful information without redundancy.

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 simple read-only documentation retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the return format and the contents. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly distinguishing this tool from the related get_component_source and get_install_command tools.

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?

The schema already documents the single `name` parameter at 100% coverage, including an example. The description does not add further meaning, constraints, or format details for the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as a component's documentation in Markdown and enumerates what it contains: when to use it, install command, props, keyboard/accessibility notes, and usage examples. It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_component_source or get_install_command.

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 phrase 'when to use it' refers to content inside the component docs, not guidance on when an agent should call this tool. No alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions are stated, leaving routing against sibling tools implicit.

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