aura_search_design_systems

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: results are metadata + snippets, slim is the default, and exact_match:true suppresses fallbacks. That fallback disclosure is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about pagination, default limit, auth, or rate limits for a 6-parameter search endpoint.

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?

Three dense clauses, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then return shape, then the alternative, then the one non-obvious flag. No filler. The 'slim by default' fragment is slightly telegraphic but still parseable.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return semantics and safety. It does describe the return shape (metadata + snippets, slim default) and cross-references the content-retrieval sibling. It leaves pagination, default sort, and default limit unspecified, which matters for a 6-param search endpoint with zero schema documentation.

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 it only explains two of six parameters (slim's default, exact_match's fallback-skipping). The remaining query, sort, limit, and offset are left to their names and the schema enum. Partial compensation, so a 3 rather than a 2.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search free Aura DESIGN.md systems'), with a concrete corpus size (725) and an explicit boundary against the sibling that retrieves content. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the other search_* siblings (aura_search_components, aura_search_skills, aura_search_assets, aura_search_all), so an agent must infer the difference from the resource name alone.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance: 'use aura_get_design_system for content,' which tells the agent this tool is a discovery step whose output is metadata and snippets. It also states the condition for exact_match. No explicit when-not (e.g., when to prefer aura_search_all) is offered.

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