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. It does disclose useful context — the corpus size (2,495) and that matching runs over title and description — and 'search' strongly implies a read-only operation. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering semantics, or return shape, which leaves real gaps for a no-annotation 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?

A single compact sentence with the verb, resource, and corpus count front-loaded, followed by the parameter hints. Nothing is padded, though the telegraphic tail ('optional category tag, sorts') reads more like schema shorthand than prose.

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?

Five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations mean the description must do more. It omits pagination (limit/offset), the meaning of the sort enum ordering, and any indication of what results contain, which is inadequate for a search endpoint with this much structured surface.

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 partially does: it explains that the query matches over title and description, that category is an optional tag filter, and that a sort exists. It says nothing about the limit or offset parameters, leaving two of five parameters entirely undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search free Aura UI components') and even quantifies the corpus (2,495), which is more concrete than most siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical aura_search_all or aura_search_assets, so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus aura_search_all, aura_trending, or aura_get_component. The only implied usage is the generic act of searching, with no preconditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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