search_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and declares read-only, idempotent, case-insensitive behavior. This is good, though it could mention any rate limits or permission requirements if applicable. Still, it provides sufficient transparency.

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 well-structured sentences: purpose+examples, usage guidance, return format+behavior. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return structure (JSON with query, count, matches array with name, category, description, inspiration). Combined with parameter clarity and behavioral notes, it is fully complete for the tool's purpose.

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?

The input schema already describes the 'query' parameter well (100% coverage). The description adds value by giving concrete examples and explaining the fuzzy-search nature, going beyond the schema's substring match description.

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 clearly states the tool performs fuzzy-search of the UploadKit component catalog by free-text keyword, providing multiple examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'list_components' by specifying that it is for discovery rather than enumeration.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (user describes vibe but no component name) and when to prefer alternatives (list_components for enumeration). The second sentence provides clear context for choosing this tool over its sibling.

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