designer_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: results are relevance-ranked, include match explanations, and accept filter aliases. It does not disclose result cardinality behavior beyond the schema's limit cap or whether the corpus is bundled offline, which would matter for freshness expectations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (ranking, match explanations, filter aliases) conveys distinct information. The compressed phrasing of "offline design/animation/starters" is slightly cryptic but costs no length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is that with zero schema description coverage and no enums, an agent has no way to learn valid category/platform values or alias syntax from either the description or 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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It partially does by revealing that filters accept documented aliases, which is non-obvious and not expressible in a bare string schema. However, it says nothing about what query matches against, what valid category/platform values exist, or why limit is capped at 10, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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") and a resource domain (offline design/animation/starters), plus the ranking behavior, which is enough to separate it from the get_* siblings that retrieve a single known item. The resource phrase is slightly garbled ("starters" with no explanation of what a starter is), but an agent can tell this is the discovery/lookup-by-text tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "Search" plus the sibling names (designer_get_asset, designer_get_reference) let an agent infer this is the entry point when it has a text query rather than an identifier. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over designer_brief or designer_audit, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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