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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: the exact match fields (ids, names, descriptions, categories, input names) and that an empty query lists every published element. It omits any pagination/result-limit behavior for that empty-query case, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, result format, match semantics, then the sibling routing chain, then exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 specifying the per-result line format and the empty-query behavior, plus scope exclusions. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: what a query actually matches against and that an empty query enumerates everything. The projectId parameter's non-switching behavior is left to the schema.

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 (published Vidova elements library), and implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_library, search_templates, and search_assets by naming the exact corpus searched. The description of result shape ('one line: id, name, category and description') makes the scope concrete.

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: use read_element to load full inputDefs/source, import_element to use an element unchanged, patch_film to place it, and 'Load the source only to change it' as a decision rule. It also states exclusions ('Does not list uploaded media or project-local components. Does not publish elements'), giving clear when-not guidance.

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