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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the required OAuth scope (read:library) and that no customer credits are debited — both operationally relevant facts the agent cannot see in the 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core search purpose before the lookup alternative, then the auth and cost caveats. 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?

With no output schema and 5 entirely undescribed parameters, the definition should say more: what fields the query matches on, whether limit/offset paginate, and how this differs from soclo_library_search. The auth and cost disclosures partially compensate, making it adequate but not 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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully explains the assetId parameter as a single-item lookup mode and implies the kind filter via 'pictures, videos, audio' (though that covers only 3 of 8 enum values). query, limit, and offset semantics — most importantly pagination behavior — remain completely undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('owned Library content'), enumerates the media types, and covers both modes (search vs. single-item lookup by assetId). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling soclo_library_search, so an agent must guess between two similarly named tools.

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?

'Needs read:library' gives a useful prerequisite and 'Free; changes nothing and debits no customer credits' clarifies cost, which is genuine usage context. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over soclo_library_search, or how it relates to upload/finalize/update flows in the same family.

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