search_elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the mutual-exclusivity rule for category/stack and the fact that every result links back to its source element page and parent project, which tells the agent what it gets back.

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 compact sentences: the first names the resource, the second front-loads the usage rule. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly notes the shape of results (links to source element page and parent project). Combined with the input constraint, an agent has enough to call correctly; only the limit parameter's tuning guidance is left to the schema.

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 75%, so the schema already documents query, stack, and category. The description goes beyond it by stating that at most one of category/stack may be supplied, a constraint not encoded in the schema, which materially affects how the agent builds the call.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Awwwards' curated element gallery) and clarifies the resource with concrete examples (footers, menus, loaders, transitions). An agent can see this is the component-level search, distinct from search_sites and search_motion, though it never explicitly names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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 'Usage:' clause gives a real input constraint (query text plus at most one of category/stack), which is actionable. However, it says nothing about when to prefer this tool over get_site_elements, get_element, or search_sites, so the when-to-use decision is only implied.

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