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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: search is metadata-only (id, prompt, date), returns only own assets, and does not display images. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, but omits details like pagination or result ordering.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by scoping and a key exclusion/alternative. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers search field semantics, scope limitation, ownership, folder scoping, and the critical non-display behavior with a pointer to show_media. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 low (only limit has a description). The description compensates by explaining query as 'prompt substring' and folderId as 'scopes to one folder.' It does not add detail for limit, but limit already has a schema description (Default 20), so the compensation is sufficient.

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: 'Search your library by prompt substring' and clearly delimits scope to metadata only (id, prompt, date). It distinguishes from sibling tools like show_media by explicitly stating 'This does NOT display images.'

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?

It explicitly provides an alternative for when display is needed: 'to show/display results to the user, pass their ids to show_media.' It also sets usage context by noting 'Only your own assets are returned' and the optional folderId scoping, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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