Das Search Assets

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'SAP MCP context: Protocol das; operation class read' and mentions 'flexible filters', but does not significantly expand on behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, add context, and give usage preference. No redundant or unnecessary information; every sentence 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?

Given the high schema coverage, full annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description adds sufficient context (use cases, preference over writes) to make the tool easy to select and invoke. Minor omission: pagination or filter combination details are not mentioned, but these are covered by the schema.

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 covers all 9 parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings or provide usage examples beyond what the schema already states. Thus, it meets the baseline expectation but adds minimal value.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search NFTs/assets with flexible filters via DAS' and lists specific filter dimensions (owner, creator, collection, search query). It distinguishes from sibling tools like Metaplex writes by advising to prefer DAS reads first. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Use for read-only DAS NFT and asset discovery' and advises to 'Prefer DAS reads before Metaplex writes when validating existing assets'. This provides clear context and some guidance on alternative tools, though more detail on when not to use (e.g., for writes) would strengthen it further.

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