suggest_asset

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It discloses that the tool automatically selects provider(s) and searches all sources, giving insight into its decision-making. It doesn't detail ranking or limitations, but covers the essential behavior for a suggestion 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 concise sentences that lead with the core action and immediately explain the tool's advantage. Every word adds value, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the input style and behavior. It could mention what the response looks like, but 'get the best matching assets' signals the output. Sibling context and schema fill most remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds context about the 'description' parameter (natural language) but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: suggesting assets across all sources based on natural language input. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by explicitly targeting cases where the user doesn't know the exact asset type.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this when you're not sure which specific asset type to search for.' This tells the agent exactly when to select this tool over the specialized search_* siblings.

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