search_flexible_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the required filter constraint, which is a key behavioral trait. But it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination behavior, whether results return full flexible asset details, or any auth requirements, leaving the agent partially uninformed.

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 concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and its critical constraint. No wasted words. It loses a point because it front-loads '<system>' parenthetical which is less valuable than the required-filter detail that follows.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, so the description carries responsibility for setting expectations. It adequately conveys the search purpose and requirement but doesn't describe what a successful result looks like (matching IT Glue search endpoints return flexible assets with flexible_asset_fields), pagination defaults, or use-case context. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 6 parameters are documented in the schema with meaningful descriptions. Per the baseline rule, this earns a 3. The description itself adds little beyond the required filter hint already echoed in the schema's flexible_asset_type_id field description.

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 states 'Search for flexible assets in IT Glue' with a clear verb (search), resource (flexible assets), and system (IT Glue). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_organizations and search_configurations by naming the flexible asset scope. It loses a point for not specifying what the results contain or how they differ from list_flexible_asset_types.

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?

The description clearly notes the required filter: '(requires flexible_asset_type_id filter)', which is an explicit usage prerequisite. It gives strong context that you must provide a type ID to search. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_flexible_asset_types (which returns types rather than assets within a type), limiting exclusion guidance.

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