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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is low, yet the description adds genuinely new obligations: results carry usage-rights levels, approval requirements, a required credit line, previews and multi-size download URLs, and it imposes a policy duty ('Always tell the user the usage rights and credit before they reuse an asset'). That is behavioral context an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

Sentences are front-loaded in a logical order: purpose, result shape, usage-rights duty, filter tip, exclusions. It is on the long side and the illustrative list ('for a presentation, article or web page') is mildly expendable, but nothing else is padding.

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 a 9-parameter, multi-enum search tool with an output schema, the description covers what it searches, how to cite results, how to filter, and where to go instead. Return values are described at a level useful for downstream answering without duplicating the output schema's field-level detail.

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 the baseline is 3; the description nevertheless adds cross-parameter guidance by telling the agent to set usageRights to "UNLIMITED" for external or third-party use, which links a filter value to a real-world decision. It does not add meaning for the other eight parameters, so it stops short of a 5.

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 ('Finds publicly released Siemens media in the Web Asset Pool') and immediately enumerates the asset kinds (photos, videos, PDFs, audio, icons). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling text tools siemens_search and siemens_developer_search, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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 triggers ('needs a picture, video, logo, icon or downloadable document... for a presentation, article or web page') and explicit when-not-to-use routing to siemens_search for text answers and siemens_developer_search for developer docs. It even prescribes a selection rule for the usageRights filter when the asset is for external use.

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