Search the asset catalog

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real substance beyond them: what each result entry contains (identity, business outcome, price, data dependency, same-day generability) — which matters since there is no output schema. It does not discuss result ordering, relevance ranking, or what happens with zero matches.

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?

Leads with the usage trigger, then the purpose, then the return shape, then the next step — a coherent progression. It is slightly padded: the inline deliverable examples overlap with the query keyword examples in the schema, and "the person" is repeated awkwardly, but no sentence is disposable.

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 with no output schema, the description covers entry fields, catalog breadth, and the downstream generate_asset call, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Missing is any note on relevance/pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter already in the schema.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the group enum and the "can be generated today" semantics of available_only. The description only loosely echoes those ideas ("whether it can be generated today") without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules between query and group. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource with scope: "Searches Andru's catalog of 139 sales, hiring, fundraising and buying assets." The search-vs-retrieve distinction from get_asset is implicit in "Searches" and reinforced by the explicit handoff to generate_asset, so an agent can separate it from the sibling retrieval 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?

Gives concrete, situational triggers (deliverable for a meeting the person won't attend, business case for the CFO, someone asking what Andru can make) and names the follow-up call to generate_asset. It does not say when NOT to use it — e.g. when the asset name is already known and get_asset is the cheaper call — so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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