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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to cover the safety profile. It adds genuine context beyond that: what gets filtered out (private and management records) and the return shape ('safe delivery variants plus schema.org MediaObject JSON-LD').

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, both front-loaded with the eligibility criteria before the return-shape note; no filler. The phrase 'safe delivery variants' is slightly opaque but does not waste space.

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, the description usefully discloses the return payload, and annotations cover the safety profile. Pagination behavior and result ordering are left unstated, a minor gap for a paged search tool.

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 kind, query, cursor, and page_size are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 plus resource ('Search ... Media Assets') and qualifies the scope with three eligibility conditions (public, active, Core-managed). An agent can distinguish it from search_documents or search_content by resource type, though those siblings are never named.

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 exclusion 'Private and management records are never returned' implies when this tool is and isn't appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing it over the many search_* siblings. Usage must be inferred from the resource noun alone.

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