search_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the 'published' scope, but does not disclose pagination behavior (cursor/limit), return shape, or whether search requires any auth/permissions.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the verb and key filters are front-loaded. It is concise, though perhaps at the cost of detail.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is sparse. An agent cannot infer cursor/limit semantics, the response format, or likely corner cases (e.g., no filters = all published assets).

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that kind, typeTags, and theme are filter criteria, but says nothing about the meaning of limit and cursor, leaving a significant gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('published assets'), and three filter dimensions (kind, typeTags, theme), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_engines or create_cheese.

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?

No explicit when/when-not or alternative routing. The intended use is implied by the verb and resource, and no sibling tool performs search, but there is no guidance about limits, pagination, or situations where other tools would be preferred.

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