ui-ux-pro-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: intelligent auto-detection of domains, platform keyword detection with cross-platform code equivalents, natural language query processing, and result grouping by domain with relevance scores. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (WHEN TO USE, PLATFORM DETECTION, QUERY TIPS, RETURNS, EXAMPLES) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While comprehensive, some sections could be more concise, and every sentence appears to earn its place by providing distinct value.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, query examples, and return format details. It covers the complexity of a multi-domain search tool well, though doesn't explicitly mention error conditions or pagination behavior for the results.

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 the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add specific parameter details beyond what's in the schema (query and max_results), though it provides query tips ('Use natural language describing your design goal') that offer semantic guidance for the query parameter without contradicting the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool performs 'unified search across ALL design domains' and lists 10 specific resource types (styles, colors, typography, etc.), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by being the 'DEFAULT tool for broad queries' versus domain-specific tools like search_components or search_styles.

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 includes a dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section that explicitly states: 'DEFAULT tool for broad queries. Use when unsure which specific tool, or need multi-domain results.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its domain-specific siblings, with explicit alternatives implied.

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