Search components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about ranking, result limits, whether it returns full component data or just matches, or any auth context. It only restates purpose.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and its scope, with examples in-line. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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 one-parameter search with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could say what comes back (component list/summaries vs full details) and how it relates to get_component, but the core need is covered.

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% with a single well-described 'query' param, so baseline is 3. The examples ('loading', 'form field', 'status label') go beyond the schema's 'a few words' by showing the granularity and type of query expected, adding real value.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Finds components') with a concrete articulation of scope ('that match what the user wants to build') plus examples. It distinguishes itself from list_components by implying intent-based matching, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied — search by user intent — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs list_components, get_component, or get_usage_example. An agent can infer the intent-matching case but gets no routing guidance.

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