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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds real behavioral context: results are metadata only (id, prompt, date), the search is substring-based on prompt text, results are limited to the caller's own assets, and nothing is rendered to the user. That last point is a genuine side-effect clarification not available in 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?

Four short clauses, zero filler, and the core search semantics plus the anti-pattern (displaying) are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (id, prompt, date) and the result scope. For a 3-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is only 33% (query and folderId have no schema descriptions), so the description carries the burden and does it: query is defined as a prompt substring match and folderId as a single-folder scope. Only 'limit' (default 20) is left to the schema, which already documents it.

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 (your library) plus the matching semantics ('prompt substring'). It also names the sibling it is not (show_media) and the scope boundary ('only your own assets'), so an agent can distinguish it from list_my_assets and show_media without opening schemas.

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 says when NOT to rely on it for display and routes to show_media with the required argument ('pass their ids'). It also implies the find-then-display workflow. It doesn't contrast against list_my_assets/list_generations, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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