Search the design system

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the search scope but says nothing about ranking, result ordering, or how the limit interacts with results, so it contributes limited behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded ahead of the usage condition. Every clause carries information.

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 could say something about result shape or ordering, and it does not. However, the annotations, complete schema coverage and default-limit documentation mean an agent has enough 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%, so query, kinds and limit are already documented in the schema. The description's domain list loosely maps to the kinds enum but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond it; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (the design-system corpus), and enumerates the content domains it covers. That enumeration plus the 'full-text' qualifier cleanly separates it from the get_*/list_* siblings, which retrieve a single known artifact.

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?

'Use when you know what you need but not where it lives' gives a clear, actionable selection condition. It implies rather than names the alternative (the direct get_component/get_tokens tools when you do know where it lives), so it falls just short of an explicit when-not/alternative statement.

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