search_fixed_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the one most important trait: 'Read-only'. However, it says nothing about permissions, pagination behavior beyond the schema defaults, or what a result set contains, leaving substantial behavioral gaps for a 10-parameter read tool.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the read-only caveat is placed at the end where it reads as a qualifier. Nothing is redundant.

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 10-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers purpose and safety but omits return shape, sorting/paging semantics, and routing against get_fixed_asset and the many other search_* siblings. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's filter list (category, status, depreciation method, location, department) largely mirrors those schema fields and adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond them. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (fixed assets), disambiguates the domain with '(capitalized property/equipment)', and enumerates the filterable dimensions. It does not explicitly name a sibling like get_fixed_asset, so the search-vs-get split is only implied by the verb.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. It never says to reach for this tool for browsing/filtering assets vs get_fixed_asset for a single asset, nor does it state prerequisites or when results would be empty. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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