elements_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes the corpus size ('thousands') and that assets are copyright-free, which is useful, but says nothing about result pagination behavior, ordering, result limits, or what a call actually returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and no filler. The asset-type enumeration is somewhat long but earns its place by telling the agent what content is searchable.

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 3-parameter search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what is searchable but omits return shape and pagination semantics. Adequate, though an agent must infer the result format.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, category, and page. The description confirms keyword search and category filtering but adds no format, syntax, or constraint details beyond that, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('copyright-free stock photos, transparent PNG cutouts, SVG vector icons, trust badges, and backgrounds'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like assets_list_stock_pngs or assets_list_stickers, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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 a browse-then-add workflow but never states when to use this tool versus assets_list_stock_pngs, assets_list_stickers, assets_list_patterns, or assets_list_local. No preconditions, no exclusions, no sequencing guidance.

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