Search assets (DAS)

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds use-case framing but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or cost despite an 11-parameter query surface, so it contributes only modestly beyond structured fields.

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 sentences, purpose first then use cases, with no redundant restatement of the title. 'Flexible' is mild filler, but the sentence earns its place by mapping filters to real queries.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is under-specified: it doesn't explain pagination defaults (page 1, limit 100), result shape, or the boolean filters. Annotations cover the safety story, but query mechanics remain undocumented.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the explanatory burden. It names owner, creator, collection, compression, and token type, but omits burnt, frozen, creatorVerified, authorityAddress, and the page/limit pagination controls, leaving roughly half the surface uninterpreted.

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 states a specific verb (query) and resource (DAS assets) and enumerates the filter dimensions: owner, creator, collection, compression state, token type. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or differentiates itself from close siblings like get_assets or get_asset_activity, so the 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?

Three concrete scenarios are given (a scammer's mints, a collection's supply, every token a wallet created), which tells the agent the kind of question this tool answers. No when-not conditions or explicit alternative tools are named, so the routing against get_assets/get_token_holders is left to inference.

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