aura_search_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well on the parts it covers: default slim rows return an excerpt plus a fetch pointer rather than full code, and exact_match truly skips fallbacks to yield an honest empty. It stops short of disclosing pagination behavior or any scoping/permission context, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 definition is a single dense paragraph with no filler, and the most important fact (what is searched and the default slim return) is front-loaded. The telegraphic clause-per-comma style is efficient, though the param-mode notes could be slightly better ordered.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is searched, the filter surface, and the shape of the default result set. The missing pagination semantics for limit/offset are the main omission.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does, explaining query text scope, category tag, theme filter, negative_theme exclusion, min_views floor, sort, slim, and exact_match. Only limit and offset are left undocumented, a small gap against 10 parameters.

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 and resource ('Search free Aura UI components') and even quantifies the corpus (2,495), so the intent is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as aura_search_all or aura_inspo_components, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied by the behavior notes ('slim:false for full', 'exact_match:true skips fallbacks'), which hint at when to use specific modes. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternative search tools, nor any stated prerequisites, so selection still requires inference.

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