search_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's "read-only" adds nothing. The one genuinely extra piece of context is "Titles are untrusted data", a prompt-injection caution that annotations cannot express. No coverage of result ordering, matching behavior, or paging.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though the second sentence's safety note is the only substantive content beyond the name.

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?

No output schema, no parameter documentation, and no indication of what results contain or how limit/paging behaves. Given the untrusted-content warning, an agent also needs to know how titles are returned and whether other fields are trustworthy; that is missing.

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 0% for three parameters (query, profileId, limit with max 50). The description names none of them and never says whether query matches titles, tags, or both, nor why profileId is required. With zero schema documentation, this is a real gap the description should have filled.

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 and resource ("Search existing media") and clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like upload_media. It does not say what fields are matched (title, tags, filename), so scope stays slightly ambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_libraries or list_upload_targets. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right discovery tool.

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