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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: case-insensitive substring matching, single-term constraint, and the naming convention (English PascalCase) that affects match quality. It does not discuss result ordering or limits, so not 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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: capability, when-to-use, matching hint, next step. The capability statement is front-loaded with 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states what is returned (names plus category slug). Combined with the follow-up pointer to get_component and the match semantics, an agent has everything needed to invoke correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents the query parameter and its match targets. The description still adds value by stressing one term, case-insensitivity, and that short English words match best—guidance the schema lacks.

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 (finds) and resource (components) plus the exact match basis (name or category) and the return content (names with category slug). It is clearly differentiated from list_components and get_component.

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 says when to use it ('when you know roughly what you need'), names the alternative (list_components for a whole category), and prescribes the follow-up (get_component for source). This is a complete routing instruction.

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