search_large_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well by stating 'Read-only' explicitly. It also discloses the return shape and sort order, so the agent knows the call has no side effects and what to expect in the response.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose and use case in the first sentence. The args and returns sections are efficiently formatted. Minor redundancy exists ('largest first' appears in both intro and returns), but it does not bloat the description.

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 read-only search tool with no annotations, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, all parameters, defaults, allowed values, sorting, and return payload structure. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: min_size_mb meaning and zero behavior, size range and default, and asset_type allowed values ('IMAGE'/'VIDEO') plus omission behavior. This is complete and unambiguous.

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 opens with 'The biggest files in the library, largest first,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and ordering. It distinguishes itself from the many other search_* siblings by focusing on file size and storage cleanup, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to find what is eating storage before a cleanup.' This is clear contextual guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough that an agent knows this is for size-based triage rather than general metadata search.

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