search_live_assets

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that providers may be live APIs or curated catalogs and that results preserve source and license provenance, adding useful context. But it omits details like rate limits, error behavior, or whether any side effects exist.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It covers purpose and provenance but lacks return format, parameter semantics, and usage nuances, leaving an agent with significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 only hints at the provider parameter ('one supported asset provider') and does not explain limit, query, or categories. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 specifies the action 'Search' and the resource 'one supported asset provider', adding context about live APIs/verified catalogs and provenance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_game_assets and search_open_source_projects.

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 states the tool searches a single provider, implying the user must specify one provider, and the provider enum reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like search_game_assets or find_game_assets.

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