search_assets

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: limit defaults and context cost, why include_labels is off, and how environment selection behaves. This helps an agent make informed invocation decisions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a compact args list where every line earns its place. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema exists.

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 tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all invocation-relevant aspects: filter syntax, defaults, context-cost trade-offs, and environment handling. It gives enough information for an agent to select and call the tool correctly without additional lookup.

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%, and the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter with concrete examples, defaults, and rationale. It adds meaning far beyond the bare schema properties, especially around limit and include_labels.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource scope ('all cloud resources'), and the mechanism ('Cloud Asset Inventory'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools that target specific GCP resources. It is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 clearly communicates when to use the tool: for broad searches across all cloud resources, with optional filtering by asset type and query. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the scope and parameter guidance imply the appropriate context, and it directs users to list_environments for environment setup.

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