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 description does not need to cover side-effect safety. It adds useful scope context by naming the five result kinds, but it does not disclose behavior like result ranking, snippet content, or pagination beyond the schema-defined limit parameter.

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 with no unnecessary words. The core search scope is front-loaded, and the use-case guidance is concise, making the purpose immediately understandable.

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 read-only search tool, the combination of description, schema, and annotations covers the essential information an agent needs. It could be slightly more complete by naming one or two sibling tools to avoid, but nothing critical is missing for invoking 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%, with meaningful descriptions for query, kinds, and limit, including examples and defaults. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across components, foundations, patterns, layouts and tokens.' This clearly differentiates the tool from the many sibling get_* and list_* tools, which target specific design-system items rather than cross-cutting discovery.

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 phrase 'Use when you know what you need but not where it lives' provides a clear condition for choosing this tool. It implies that direct access tools like get_component or get_layout are preferable when the exact location is known, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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