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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping fact that only the caller's assets are searched, which is useful, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or pagination.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and scope are conveyed in a single clause with zero wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, the description leaves open what happens when the optional 'query' is omitted and how the mention search is scoped to results, which matters for a tool with zero required parameters.

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?

The single 'query' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no help on what the query string matches or how maxLength=100 interacts with it. With one undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Search') and enumerates the resource domains ('ad accounts, products and campaigns') plus the scope ('composer @-mentions'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like assets_list_ad_accounts or assets_pick, though it never names an alternative 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?

The phrase 'composer @-mentions' implies the context of use (autocomplete while composing), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to any alternative search tool. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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