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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful traits: metadata-only matching, pagination semantics (follow nextCursor until hasMore is false), and a safety-style prohibition against creating an edit while searching. Auth requirements and rate limits remain unstated, but the key behavioral profile is covered.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then adds scope, query style, pagination, and a caution in compact sentences. Each sentence earns its place, though the closing 'Never create an edit while searching' reads as a somewhat cryptic aside.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the relevant return behavior (hasMore/nextCursor) so pagination is clear. For a 5-param search tool with no annotations it covers purpose, scope, query style, and pagination adequately; only auth/permission context is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds practical meaning by advising a concise subject keyword for 'query' and explaining the nextCursor/hasMore pagination contract. This goes slightly beyond the schema's terser 'Subject or metadata terms to match'.

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 and resource ('Search existing workspace media') plus the exact metadata fields it matches against (prompt, file name, description, tags). The line 'This searches metadata, not image pixels' usefully scopes it apart from any visual/semantic search, though no sibling tool (e.g. list_media) is named to anchor the distinction.

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?

Provides query-formulation advice ('Use a concise subject keyword such as "cat"') and pagination guidance, plus a caution against creating an edit during search. However, it never states when to choose this over list_media/get_media or other retrieval siblings, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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