search_assets

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that this is a network call to a public REST API, implying latency and external dependency. It also explains the return behavior (matching assets with asset_id for install_asset), adding useful context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a relevant integration note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 lack of an output schema, the description partially compensates by hinting at the return value (asset_id for install_asset) and the network call nature. However, it doesn't describe the full return format or pagination behavior, which are important for a search tool with 9 parameters.

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%, with all 9 parameters already described in detail. The description's mention of the returned asset_id does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Godot Asset Library'), clearly stating it returns addons and project templates. It also distinguishes its purpose by linking the returned asset_id to install_asset, providing context beyond the tool name.

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 clearly establishes the context for use: searching the public Asset Library and returning IDs for installation via install_asset. It doesn't explicitly exclude any alternative tools, but the reference to install_asset and the read-only network call provide clear guidance.

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