search_owned_assets

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers substantive traits: the 3-way RRF fusion of FTS5/BGE/CLIP, result 'match' attribution ('keyword+semantic+vision'), and the ownership distinction ('vault_owned' vs 'catalog_grant'). It also discloses engine-agnostic matching behavior for Quixel and Cosmos sources. It stops short of pagination, rate limits, and error behavior, but the core result-interpretation behaviors are well covered.

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?

The purpose line is front-loaded, followed by two compact behavioral notes, then a terse parameter block where each line earns its place with inline enums. No filler, no repetition of schema defaults. The structure is scannable and information-dense.

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?

The output schema covers return structure, so the description rightly focuses on filtering semantics and result interpretation. For a 7-parameter hybrid-search tool with zero annotations, it covers the essentials: marketplaces, engine-agnostic matching, render pipeline, and ownership/match attribution. Remaining gaps—query syntax, pagination beyond limit, and empty-result behavior—are modest for a 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 5 of 7 parameters: engine, source, pipeline, local_only, and limit all receive meaningful semantics with inline enum values (e.g., 'all|unity|fab|quixel|gumroad|cosmos'). The engine note adds genuine nuance ('Engine-agnostic sources... match both unity and unreal'). query and category remain unexplained, with query—the only required parameter—lacking any guidance on accepted query syntax.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the user's asset vault across Unity, Fab, Quixel Megascans, Gumroad, and Cosmos.' The enumerated marketplaces and the vault scope clearly distinguish it from siblings like get_asset_details, list_asset_categories, and get_vault_stats. The hybrid-search detail ('keyword (FTS5) fused with BGE text embeddings and CLIP visual vectors') reinforces that this is the vault search operation.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the name and first line mark this as the vault search tool, and filters like local_only ('only assets already downloaded to disk') hint at concrete use cases. However, the description never states when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., get_asset_details for a known asset, list_asset_categories for taxonomy) or any exclusion conditions. An agent must infer the division of labor from sibling names alone.

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