search_data_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the compact result format with truncated fields, pagination mechanics (has_more, next_token, item_count), and the effect of include_field_names. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. However, some sentences could be more efficient (e.g., 'Item fields: id=id, n=name, d=description (truncated), t=tags (limited)' is slightly redundant). Overall, it's well-structured with minimal waste.

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 tool's complexity (search with many parameters) and no annotations, the description does a good job covering key aspects like result format, pagination, and usage alternatives. With an output schema likely present (as indicated), it doesn't need to explain return values in detail, but more on query syntax would help.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining the 'include_field_names' parameter's effect and implying pagination usage, but it doesn't detail the 'search_params' object's many sub-parameters (e.g., query syntax, filters). This partial compensation results in a baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Search for data assets with filtering, sorting, and pagination options.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('data assets'), and scope ('filtering, sorting, and pagination'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_data_asset' (for full details) and 'list_data_asset_files' (for files).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use get_data_asset(id) if full details needed.' It also implies usage context through pagination instructions and the 'include_field_names' parameter, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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