api_indexer_search_for_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'various criteria' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by 'nextToken' and 'itemsPerPage' in schema), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on errors. For a search tool with 8 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool, though it could be more informative. It's front-loaded with the core action but lacks depth that might justify more content.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a search tool in a context with many asset-related siblings, more guidance is needed to help the agent use it effectively.

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 the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying search criteria, which the schema already covers with detailed parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search for assets with various criteria' clearly states the action (search) and resource (assets), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_indexer_lookup_asset_by_id' or 'api_indexer_lookup_account_assets'. It lacks specificity about what type of assets or what search capabilities are available.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to assets (e.g., 'api_indexer_lookup_asset_by_id', 'api_indexer_lookup_asset_balances'), the description fails to indicate whether this is for broad searches, filtered queries, or paginated results, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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