bulk_asset_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'bulk' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, performance implications, error handling for partial failures, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves operationally.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Search for multiple asset queries') and qualifies it with 'in bulk'. There is zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope without redundancy or fluff.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that performs search operations (which can have complex behaviors like pagination, sorting, or error handling), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, performance considerations, or how results are structured for bulk queries. For a tool with potential complexity, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the schema fully documents the 'assets' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying bulk processing, which is already suggested by the array structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or clarify nuances like query syntax or result ordering.

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 the verb ('Search') and resource ('multiple asset queries'), specifying it handles multiple queries in bulk. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_assets' (singular) and 'search_relevant_assets' (different scope), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'asset' refers to in this context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_assets' or 'search_relevant_assets'. The description implies bulk processing but doesn't specify thresholds (e.g., use for >5 queries) or exclusions. Without context on trade-offs or prerequisites, the agent lacks clear usage direction.

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