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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing pagination support and the 'real catalog' nature, which informs the agent about iteration behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, empty-result handling, or return format—though the annotations lower the bar for safety-related behavior.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently adds pagination and catalog authenticity. Structure is clean and scannable, though it could have included usage guidance without much cost. Still, it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return structure, sorting, or result shape. It also omits when to use this tool versus get_asset. While annotations cover safety, the absence of any description of what results look like leaves a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to call and how to interpret the response. The pagination note is helpful but insufficient for a complete picture.

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 80%, so most parameters (limit, query, cursor, industry) already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'supports pagination', which aligns with the cursor/limit parameters but does not clarify semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for the small coverage gap on category.

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 precise resource: 'AETumi 3D web assets' with enumerated types (scenes, components, sections, templates). It also adds 'Real catalog' to distinguish from mock data, and clearly indicates this is a search operation distinct from retrieval siblings like get_asset. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_asset, recommend_stack, or list_categories. The description mentions pagination but does not state when to prefer search over other tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. An agent would have to infer from the sibling names that search is for open-ended discovery, which is not made explicit.

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