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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the only behavioral nuance not in annotations - that results can come from semantic ranking or metadata filtering - but omits ranked-vs-paginated result behavior and the one-page nature of semantic search, which is instead buried in the cursor parameter description.

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 with the verb and resource first and the mechanism second; 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?

There is no output schema and no return-shape description, and with 8 parameters at 38% schema coverage plus pagination limits (limit/cursor) unaddressed, the definition is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully groups the inputs into two conceptual modes (searchTerm vs tags/type/label/status), but provides no per-parameter meaning, defaults, or limit/pagination semantics, leaving the burden largely on 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 (find) and resource (media and files in a project's asset library), and distinguishes the library-scoped retrieval from a generic file listing. However it never names a sibling such as list_files or get_file, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

The phrase 'using semantic search or library metadata' implies two invocation modes, which hints at when each filter set applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of list_files or get_file as alternatives for the non-search path.

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