pixasso_search_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scope detail (20 catalogs, 11 templates, 16 pillars), which is useful, but it is silent on result ranking, limits, or pagination for what is inherently a large result set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that quantifies the search surface and wastes no words. Nothing extraneous.

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 simple, read-only, idempotent search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the search domain adequately. It could say something about the shape or volume of returned results, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 100% with all three parameters (query, tag, category) documented in the schema itself, including the enum values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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?

Clear verb (search) plus an explicit resource scope: catalogs, templates, and frontend pillars. An agent knows this is a broad keyword search, but the description never contrasts itself with the sibling pixasso_fetch_reference, so the boundary between searching and fetching a single item is left to inference.

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 statement and no alternatives are named. The description implies broad retrieval, but it never says to use fetch_reference when a specific item is already known, nor excludes any cases. Guidance is absent rather than misleading.

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