design_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly warns that output is advisory rather than prescriptive, which is useful, but it never states whether the tool is read-only, whether the "build a design-system" path writes or persists anything, or how broad results are. "Build" in a no-annotation context is an unresolved mutation ambiguity.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the resource categories, with no filler. The size is right; the problem is missing content rather than verbal bloat, so it earns credit for structure while still being under-specified.

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?

A six-parameter tool with one enum, zero annotation coverage, and no output schema needs a description that explains modes, parameters, and result shape. This one covers none of that, leaving the agent to infer the mode switch and the meaning of most inputs.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It loosely gestures at the domain enum (styles, palettes, fonts, UX rules) and at the design_system flag, but stack, project_name, max_results, and the other enum values (chart, landing, product, icons, gsap, react, web) are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 names a verb ("Search") and concrete resource types (styles, palettes, fonts, UX rules), which is more than a tautology. But it presents a second, different operation ("or build a design-system suggestion") without explaining what selects that mode, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like design_guide or design_direction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the five sibling tools with which it overlaps (design_guide, design_direction, design_inspect). Is this for lookup or for full design-system generation? The agent has to guess. The only guidance-like line ("Results are recommendations, not rules") is about trust, not selection.

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