ui-ux-pro-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns (section structures, do/don't practices, conversion tips, code examples) and provides examples of search queries. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for a search tool.

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 (purpose, when to use, type filter, returns, examples) and every sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with no redundant information, and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns and providing examples. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format structure or error conditions. The combination of purpose, usage guidelines, and return description makes it mostly complete for this context.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the TYPE FILTER options and providing example queries, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context that isn't already in the schema descriptions.

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 searches design patterns with specific categories (landing page layouts, UX guidelines, product type recommendations) and includes quantitative counts (60+, 130+, 117+). It distinguishes from siblings like search_components or search_platforms by focusing specifically on design patterns rather than components, platforms, or other search types.

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 includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section listing specific contexts: page layouts, UX best practices, accessibility, and navigation patterns. This provides clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives, helping the agent choose between this and sibling tools like search_components or search_all.

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