search_design_system

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior beyond the schema: results return in query order, pagination is per kind, components are scoped to the current page unless pageId is supplied, and there is no cloud/Code Connect coverage. It omits permissions/auth, whether results are capped, and any indication of what a result object contains.

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 dense sentences with the core scope stated first and constraints after; nothing is padding. The telegraphic phrasing ("queries batches {entity,query} searches") is slightly awkward to parse but costs no length.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and query batching but leaves the pagination contract (how limit/offset interact with per-kind paging) and return payload shape unexplained. An agent could invoke it, but would likely need a probing call to understand results.

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?

With only 27% schema description coverage across 11 parameters, the description has to compensate and does so for a subset: queries as batched {entity,query} pairs, legacy query/kind, and pageId's effect on component scope. limit, offset, includeLibraryKeys, disableCodeConnect, and fileKey get nothing here beyond their bare schema, so the gap is only partially closed.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair ("Search local components, variables and styles") and immediately scopes it to local assets, which distinguishes it from library-oriented siblings like get_libraries. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so an agent must infer which tool to use for cloud/library lookups.

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?

"No cloud component-library or Code Connect search" is a useful exclusion, and "Legacy query/kind also supported" clarifies which parameter form is preferred. However, it never says when to reach for search_design_system versus get_component_context, get_variable_defs, or get_libraries, so the alternative-routing is left implicit.

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