Search Design Collection Assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention if the tool is read-only, whether results are paginated, or what happens with no results. The minimal description does not adequately convey behavioral traits.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the tool's function. It is front-loaded and has no unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing supported filters).

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool searches but does not cover return format, sorting, or result limits. For a search tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'query' described as 'Search query for asset metadata.' The description adds valuable semantics by specifying the searchable fields (name, type, category, style, or tag), which goes beyond the schema alone.

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 it searches design collection asset metadata by specific fields (name, type, category, style, or tag). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_design_collection_assets' (which lists all assets) and 'get_design_asset' (which retrieves a specific asset).

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for filtering or searching as opposed to listing or retrieving individual assets. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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