Search assets across all programs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape at a high level ('which program owns each asset and whether it is in scope'), confirming read-only search semantics. However, it says nothing about pagination limits, filtering defaults (in_scope_only defaults true), or result ordering, all of which matter for a 5-param search.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The final sentence partly restates the return-ownership point already made, so it is slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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?

With a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is searched, what comes back, and the primary use case. The missing pieces (pagination behavior, result ordering) are secondary for a straightforward search tool.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema, including defaults for limit, offset, and in_scope_only. The description's examples ('kaspersky.com', 'vpn', 'mobile app') add only marginal flavor beyond the schema's substring semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (search scope assets) and scopes it explicitly to all programs, which separates it from the per-program get_program_scope sibling. It also names the match fields (domain, product name, description). It stops short of explicitly naming get_program_scope as the alternative.

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?

'Useful to find every program that covers a given domain' gives one concrete use case, so usage is implied rather than spelled out. There is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to get_program_scope for single-program lookups.

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