toolbox_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one useful trait: no plugin dependency. However, it omits how pagination works, whether results are cached/rate-limited, and what happens on empty results, so behavioral coverage is only partial.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the capability statement and the handoff-to-insert_asset detail are both front-loaded and each earns its place.

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 4-parameter read-style search with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, result type, and next step. It could say more about result ordering, paging behavior, or result count limits, but what is present is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented with examples and value hints in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Roblox Toolbox/catalog) plus the asset types covered. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming insert_asset as the downstream consumer and toolbox_info implicitly by scoping to search.

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 explicitly tells the agent what to do with the results ('asset IDs you can pass to insert_asset') and clarifies 'No plugin required', which is real invocation context. It stops short of naming when *not* to use it versus toolbox_info or another lookup path.

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