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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It contributes the fact that retrieval can be semantic/ranked or metadata-filtered, which materially changes what comes back, but stops short of describing ranking, default ordering, or pagination behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and the resource named before the query modes. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes directly to the coverage gaps elsewhere rather than reflecting disciplined economy.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema read tool with low schema coverage, the description is too thin: an agent gets no guidance on pagination via cursor/limit, filter combination, or default result set. It is technically accurate but not sufficient to drive correct invocation on its own.

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?

With only 38% schema description coverage across 8 parameters, the description needs to carry meaning for tags, label, limit, and searchTerm. It gestures at two parameter groups (search term vs metadata) but never maps them, and limit, label, and the tags array are entirely undiscussed in both places.

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 gives a specific verb (find) and resource (media and files in a project's asset library) and names the two retrieval modes, semantic search and library metadata. It is clearly distinguishable from write-side siblings like upload_asset or update_file, but it does not distinguish itself from list_files, which is the closest read alternative.

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?

"Using semantic search or library metadata" implies two usage paths but never says which conditions should push an agent to one or the other, and never names list_files or get_file as alternatives. The agent must infer from the schema that searchTerm triggers the semantic path and the other filters trigger the metadata path.

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