Search Exchange assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about read-only safety, authentication/organization scoping, or rate limits. It also adds no return-shape or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already documents for limit/offset. The implicit read-only nature of 'search' is the only signal.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the covered asset types listed as a scannable clause. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is short enough that it leaves obvious gaps unfilled rather than being maximally informative.

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?

With six optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not describe what the returned assets look like or how search interacts with the types filter, so an agent gets no help on result interpretation beyond the schema.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema (limit, orgId, types, offset, search, includeRaw). The description reinforces the types filter by naming asset kinds, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Search) and resource (Anypoint Exchange assets), and enumerates the asset kinds covered (APIs, connectors, templates, examples, fragments). It is instantly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which all target different resources (environments, apps, logs, business groups). No explicit sibling routing is needed because none of them overlap.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when not to use it. That you would call it to find assets is only implied by the verb. For a search tool this leaves the agent to infer scoping and pagination strategy on its own.

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