Search the documentation

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world safety. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: prefix and typo tolerance, best-first ranking, and the shape of returned fields including the empty heading for the opening section.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core action, then the matching semantics, then the return shape and ordering. No filler, everything earns its place.

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 two-parameter, enums-free search tool with a full input schema, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: matching behavior, ranking, and how results chain into get_component.

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%, with limit's range and default and query's format fully documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra parameter syntax or constraints beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (full-text search) over a specific resource (sections of every Perfect UI 1.0.0 document), plus the matching behavior (prefix and typo tolerant). It also separates itself from sibling get_component by noting the returned slug is what feeds that tool.

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 the workflow clearly: search here first, then use the returned slug with get_component. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for other discovery paths (e.g., list_components), but the context is unambiguous.

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