Search Components

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is already known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it searches the union of Bootstrap Italia and Dev Kit, returns rows shaped as bsi:{}|null/devkit:{}|null, and provides alias normalization examples. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage, though details like match semantics (substring vs exact) are not disclosed.

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 three concise sentences with the action verb first, followed by scope, row-shape note, and examples. Every sentence earns its place and no filler or repetition exists.

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 single-parameter read-only search tool, the description is complete: it defines the search scope, the data source, the field types, and the output row shape via the reference to dsi_list_components. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the row-shape hint, and no critical usage context is missing.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, but the description adds semantic depth by clarifying that the query can be a name, slug, Italian/English alias, or Dev Kit tag, plus concrete alias examples. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema's simple 'Search text' label.

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 tool as a search over the unified Design System component inventory, specifying searchable dimensions (name, slug, Italian/English alias, Dev Kit tag). It distinguishes itself from dsi_list_components by explicitly noting it returns the same unified rows but is a search operation, and the alias examples reinforce its purpose.

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 this tool versus listing all components by referencing dsi_list_components as the source of the same rows. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare to sibling search tools like tokens_search, but the context is clear enough for an agent to determine this is the component-search entry point.

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