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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Does not change anything' largely restates structured data. It adds no new behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or how cursor/limit interact, though the output schema carries nextCursor. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is fair.

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 with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the sibling pointers come second. Nothing needs pruning.

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 read-only search with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description covers enough to call the tool correctly. The only gap is the unsupported 'date' filter mention and no hint that results are paginated, both minor given the schema already documents limit, cursor, and nextCursor.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including typo tolerance, the 20/100 limit default, and enum values. The description only gestures at the filter dimensions without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Searches') and resource ('the media library') and enumerates the filter dimensions (text, type, source, date). It also names related siblings get_asset and add_asset. However, it claims a 'date' filter that no schema parameter supports, a small inaccuracy that keeps it from a 5.

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?

It says 'Related: get_asset, add_asset' but never states the condition that selects this tool over those siblings (e.g., use get_asset when you already know the ID). Usage is only implied by the word 'Searches'. No when-not guidance or prerequisites.

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