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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by stating the Asset.View permission requirement, the tenant scope ('authorized company'), and what comes back ('asset details and public GUIDs') — meaningful because no output schema exists. It omits any note on result caps or paging for a potentially broad match.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the return payload, then the permission prerequisite. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return content, the permission gate, and the scope constraint. The only missing piece is behavior for large result sets (pagination or truncation), which matters for a substring search.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the length limit, case-insensitivity, and the anti-parameter hint about searchTerm. The description only restates the match target, so the baseline 3 is appropriate — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (searches) and resource (assets) with a clear matching criterion (partial name or serial number) scoped to the authorized company. It is distinguishable from uteamup_asset_list and uteamup_asset_get_by_guid by that matching criterion, though it never names the siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the matching rule: use this when you have a partial name or serial number rather than a GUID or a need to enumerate everything. However, no alternative is named and no exclusion is stated (e.g. 'use uteamup_asset_list to browse all assets'), so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names.

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