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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the empty-query fallback and enumerating the return payload, including pricing and license fields — significant since there is no output schema. Pagination/cursor behavior is the one undisclosed trait.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded. The long return-field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists to carry that information.

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 5-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the edge case, and the full return shape. It stops short of explaining pagination semantics or result ordering beyond the empty-query case, which is the remaining gap.

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 only 40%, with query and aspect_ratio documented in the schema. The description adds semantics for query (empty = newest) and implies the type filter via 'images and videos', but page and per_page receive no meaning beyond their schema bounds and defaults.

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 ('Semantic search over AI-generated images and videos') and clarifies the degenerate case (empty query lists newest). This clearly separates it from the get_asset/get_set/list_sets siblings, which are retrieval-by-identifier or collection 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?

The empty-query behavior is a useful usage hint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_asset or get_set, nor any stated preconditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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