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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search operation ('Find') but does not explicitly state side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or return format. The qualifiers 'published, permissioned' give some scope context but not behavioral transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses two sentences without filler, efficiently stating the main action and a clarifying alias note.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect of parameters, what the returned assets look like, or when to use it. An agent cannot determine correct usage from this description.

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%, and the description provides no information about 'limit' or 'capability_code'. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's type/default, leaving the agent to guess what these parameters do and how they affect results.

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 clearly states the verb 'find' and the resource 'assets' with qualifiers like 'published, permissioned, human-origin'. It also mentions being an alias for the asset catalog, which gives context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling find tools like me_find_capability or me_find_resource, so the distinctiveness is unclear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says 'Alias for the asset catalog' but does not explain under what conditions an agent should choose this over other find tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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