aura_search_design_systems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the important trait 'Metadata only' and the corpus size (725). It says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset params, and nothing about ordering semantics for the sort enum.

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?

Two tightly packed clauses with zero waste; the purpose and the metadata-only constraint are front-loaded before the sibling routing hint.

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 simple search tool with no output schema the description is adequate at the routing level, but with 4 completely undocumented parameters an agent must guess at query syntax and pagination behavior, leaving a real gap for invocation correctness.

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% and all four parameters (query, sort, limit, offset) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about what query matches, what sort values do, or defaults/ranges for limit and offset, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Search) and resource (Aura DESIGN.md systems), scopes it as 'free' with a count (725), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling aura_get_design_system. An agent can tell search from fetch without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to aura_get_design_system when content (rather than metadata) is needed, which is the key decision point. It does not, however, state when this search is preferable to the sibling listing tools like aura_search_all or aura_trending.

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