find_game_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds context like commercial/license filters and explainable match reasons, but doesn't cover side effects, rate limits, pagination, or authentication. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and there's no mention of how results are ranked or what the response format is.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core function, and the second gives usage context. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the primary purpose and usage context but leaves out details about return format, ranking explanation, pagination, and parameter specifics. It's adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete.

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 must compensate. It hints at 'commercial/license filters' (mapping to commercialOnly, allowShareAlike, allowAttribution) and 'all supported asset providers' (mapping to providers), but it fails to explain key parameters like limit, perProviderLimit, categories, and query. For an 8-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

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 it searches across all supported asset providers, applies filters, and returns ranked results. It further differentiates itself from sibling tools by noting it's the preferred tool when the user doesn't name a source site, which distinguishes it from provider-specific search tools.

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 a clear use case: 'preferred when the user describes the asset they need without naming a source site.' This implies when a source is named, other tools are more appropriate, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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