find_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are verified and accompanied by source citations and that lookup is 'dynamic' against a configured catalogue, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what happens on zero matches, or any catalogue/auth preconditions.

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?

Three tight sentences with the directive front-loaded ('Use this first'), a useful concrete example, and a short return-value note. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 three-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers intent translation and return citations but omits result-count behavior (max_results default/ceiling), empty-result handling, and the meaning of source_id, leaving real gaps for an agent configuring the call.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' is natural-language frontend intent (with a concrete example), and 'configured public catalogue' loosely hints at source_id, but max_results and the length/range constraints on all three parameters are entirely undocumented.

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+resource pair ('discover verified component types') and scopes it to a 'configured public catalogue', which separates it from siblings like find_design_systems or get_component_examples. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear directive conditions: 'Use this first' establishes ordering relative to the other discovery tools, and 'do not guess a component name' states a negative case. It stops short of naming which sibling to call next (e.g. get_component_examples), so alternatives are only implied.

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