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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds genuine behavior: result cap of 25 newest matching assets, empty result semantics ('no owned asset matched'), full-page vs short-page pagination end conditions, and the updated_at version caveat with an explicit note that the timestamp is not permission to generate from the public URL.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, search modes, then pagination mechanics; almost every sentence carries an operational fact. The trailing sentence about updated_at is slightly tangled but still conveys a real constraint, so little is wasted.

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 zero schema description coverage on five parameters, the description supplies return shape (up to 25 newest assets), the morePagesMayExist paging contract, kind vocabulary, and a caution about using library timestamps. An agent has enough to call and iterate 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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains query (title or exact asset ID), kind (brand_asset or an exact row kind), and the offset/limit paging loop. The id parameter is only indirectly covered via 'exact asset ID', leaving one of five parameters implicit.

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 and resource ('Find saved images, videos and other content in the connected account's library') and adds the search dimensions (title or exact asset ID) and kind-based listing. It never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling soclo_library_find, which is a real gap for an agent choosing between the two.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use detail: pass kind=brand_asset for Brand Kit rows, any other exact row kind for other rows, and an explicit offset += limit loop while morePagesMayExist is true. It offers no exclusions or routing away from soclo_library_find / soclo_media, which is the one ambiguity left unresolved.

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