search_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that matching is name-based and scoped by bundle/archive state, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination beyond the limit param, or truncation behavior.

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 compact clauses with the primary action front-loaded and the optional constraint trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the second clause slightly duplicates what the schema already documents.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description only needs to establish intent and scope, which it does. Only a missing note on result ordering or limit behavior keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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%, including the case-insensitive semantics of query and the tri-state meaning of archived, so baseline 3 applies. The description restates name matching and archive restriction but contributes no additional parameter detail.

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 and resource ('Find assets across bundles') plus the matching key ('by name'), which is clearer than a bare 'search'. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like query_records or get_record, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'optionally restricted to active or archived assets' hints at the archive-filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as query_records. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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