radiant_search_data_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Search' implies a non-mutating, read-only operation and the parenthetical about NFTs with DAT protocol adds useful context. However, it does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or any marketplace-specific constraints beyond the schema.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then provides clarifying detail. Every word contributes value and there is no redundancy.

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 straightforward search operation, the description plus fully documented schema is largely complete. The main gap is the lack of any information about the return format, but the absence of an output schema and the intuitive nature of search make this a minor omission.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions ('Search query', 'Filter by asset type', 'Max results'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema fields, but no compensation is needed given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Search') and the resource ('the data marketplace') with concrete examples of assets ('datasets, models, and other data assets'). It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `radiant_search_tokens`.

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 implies the appropriate use case: searching for data assets in the data marketplace. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over a sibling like `radiant_search_tokens`, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions for alternative choices.

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