search_components

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond these: a hard cap of 8 results, compact summaries, empty-list behavior on no matches, and the absence of markup in responses. This gives the agent concrete expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the core behavior, result limit, and edge-case behavior. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of annotation information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does disclose the most important output traits: up to 8 summaries, empty list on no match, and no markup. However, it omits what a 'compact summary' contains, how results are ordered, and whether there are any constraints on intent or query semantics. The description is adequate for a simple search tool but not fully complete for an agent deciding how to call it correctly the first time.

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 burden falls on the description. The text only repeats the parameter names ('by intent and query') without explaining the distinction between intent and query, expected value formats, or examples. An agent cannot confidently know what to supply for each parameter beyond the schema's string type and maxLength.

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: 'Find up to 8 compact component summaries by intent and query.' It clearly identifies the tool as a search/find operation and distinguishes it from the sibling get_component_details (which implies a singular fetch) and validate_composition (which implies validation).

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus get_component_details or validate_composition. The description implies a search scenario but never states exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection conditions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and generic 'search' semantics.

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