alga_assets_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are capped at limit and are not paginated, which tells the agent it must size limit rather than page through results. It stops short of describing matching semantics (substring vs prefix) or the result shape.

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, no filler, and the core behavior plus the non-pagination caveat are front-loaded before the routing hint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 simple read-only search with annotations covering safety, the definition covers purpose, result cap and alternative routing adequately. The gaps are the unexplained include_extension_data flag and the absence of any hint about result shape, which matters more here because no output schema exists.

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 carries the parameter burden. It conveys that query is free text and that limit caps the match count, but include_extension_data is never mentioned despite being an opaque boolean whose effect an agent cannot infer from its name. Two of three parameters get meaning; the third is left undocumented everywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Search assets by text") plus a scope constraint ("return up to limit matches"). It explicitly distinguishes itself from alga_assets_list, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

It names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it: filtering by client, type or status goes to alga_assets_list. The remaining case, free-text lookup, is implicitly this tool's domain, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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