Search official component metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it uses a 'verified metadata-only fallback,' which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose quirks like rate limits, parameter defaults, or what happens with empty results. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value.

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 one sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes a key fallback detail efficiently. However, it could be more structured with a second sentence about when to use it, earning a 4.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and one required parameter. The description adds minimal context about the fallback but does not explain parameter usage, return format, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_install_instructions. For a search tool, an agent needs to know what 'metadata' means, how query filtering works, and the impact of 'live' parameter. The description leaves too much unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all. It does reference 'selected library', which implies library_id, but does not explain the purpose of live, limit, or query. Given 4 parameters and 0% coverage, the description should provide more detail on parameters. Baseline for zero coverage is low, so a score of 3 is generous given the lack of parameter explanation.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('a selected library's public official registry'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_install_instructions and list_libraries. It also notes a metadata-only fallback, adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly mention the returned component metadata or differentiate from all sibling tools 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?

The description implies when to use it (searching for components in a library's official registry) and hints at a fallback for libraries without one. But it does not provide explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or mention alternatives like get_library_guidance. It gives some context but lacks explicit routing among siblings.

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