search_components

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only, side-effect-free behavior is covered. The description doesn't add additional behavioral context such as result format, fuzzy matching, pagination, or what 'search' returns, but it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately states what the tool does and the input scope. There is no redundant filler, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the minimal complexity (one required string parameter), the rich schema coverage, and the safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what the search returns, but the name and description make the tool's purpose clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and the query parameter already has a descriptive comment: 'Search query (component name, keyword, or description)'. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond rephrasing what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('shadcn/ui components'), and a precise scope ('by name or description'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_components and get_component_info, since 'search' implies query-based retrieval rather than listing or detail lookup.

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 that the tool is appropriate when an agent needs to find a component using a name, keyword, or description query. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over list_components or get_component_info, and it provides no exclusion criteria or alternative guidance.

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