reels_search_remote_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: an external provider (Poly Haven), CC0 licensing, one-day catalog caching, and that results are compact metadata rather than full assets. It does not say whether results must be downloaded via a separate tool or how the cache affects freshness of results.

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-loaded with the core action and the fallback condition, then two short supporting clauses with no filler. The trailing "Powered by Poly Haven" is largely redundant with the earlier provider mention and is the one expendable phrase.

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?

With no output schema, "Returns compact metadata" is helpful but thin, and pagination (limit max 20, offset) is never explained. For a remote-catalog search feeding an asset import pipeline, an agent would still need to infer how results connect to reels_download_asset or reels_import_asset.

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% across all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to compensate. It says nothing about how query matching works, what limit controls, or how offset pagination interacts with the cached catalog.

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 downloadable Poly Haven CC0 models, and scopes it to the case where the local asset bank lacks a suitable match. The remote-vs-local framing implicitly separates it from reels_search_assets, though it never names that sibling 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?

"when the local bank lacks a suitable asset" gives a clear triggering condition, effectively positioning this as a fallback to the local search tool. It stops short of naming reels_search_assets or stating when not to use this tool (e.g., when licensing or offline use matters).

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