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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of result scope, pagination, authentication, or limitations. It simply restates the read/search behavior the annotations already imply.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the asset categories without repetition. It avoids any wasted words while conveying the core function at a glance.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It is clear the tool is a read-only search, but an agent cannot confidently infer valid asset_type values, the meaning of capability, or how results are returned and filtered. The large sibling list also makes the lack of routing guidance more costly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain asset_type and capability. It only loosely hints at possible asset_type values through the category list ('data, files, software, compute and APIs') and never addresses capability. This is minimal compensation for two undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a resource ('data, files, software, compute and APIs'), making it clear this tool is a general asset lookup. It is not as explicit as it could be about how it differs from siblings like discover_compute or list_code_assets, but the category enumeration gives enough functional identity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it, whether it is only for owned assets, or how it relates to sibling search/list tools. The agent is left to infer the appropriate usage context.

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