Search components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well by disclosing that the search is deterministic and non-semantic, which prevents misuse. It also clarifies the search scope across multiple fields, though it could mention that it returns multiple matches or how results are ordered, a minor gap.

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 zero waste: the first defines scope and behavior, the second immediately routes to alternatives. Critically, the negative constraint ('NOT semantic/AI search') is front-loaded, which is exactly what an agent needs to see first.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete for invocation and selection purposes. It covers scope, behavior, limitations, and alternatives, leaving no obvious gap that would cause mis-invocation.

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 schema covers the single parameter fully (free-text, case-insensitive substring), and the description reinforces that the query is a plain substring match, not AI-based. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, especially the negation of semantic behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Deterministic substring search') and a clear resource ('component id, name, aliases, tags, and description'), immediately distinguishing it from semantic search. It explicitly names the siblings it is not, which clarifies its unique role in the registry toolset.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (when you have a partial query) and when not to use it (when you already know an exact identifier), and names the two alternatives: registry_get_component and registry_find_by_design_reference. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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