search_assets_aql

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context: 'Supports complex queries with filters' and 'robust automatic pagination,' which hints at capabilities beyond basic search. However, it does not cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'robust' pagination entails, leaving gaps in transparency for a search tool.

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 description is concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence and adds key features in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and hints at capabilities but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain what results look like, but it doesn't, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain AQL syntax or pagination behavior further). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search JSM Assets using AQL (Assets Query Language).' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('JSM Assets'), and method ('using AQL'), which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., 'search_child_objects'), missing full differentiation for a score of 5.

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 usage by mentioning 'Supports complex queries with filters and robust automatic pagination,' suggesting it's for advanced searches. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_child_objects') or any exclusions, leaving usage context implied rather than clearly defined.

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