search_flexible_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the save_to_file parameter but does not explain its side effect (writing results to a temp file). It does not clarify that the operation is read-only, nor does it explain the output_format options ('full', 'compact', 'summary') or their implications. The search nature suggests a read operation, but this is not stated explicitly. The return type is given as a JSON string, but there is no detail on potential side effects or variations in behavior.

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 uses a clear docstring format: a one-sentence purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the core action and keeps each parameter description short. No extraneous content, though the docstring style adds some verbosity relative to a single-line description. Overall, it is appropriately sized and organized for quick scanning.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not detailed in the description, the tool is moderately complex. The description does not explain the meaning or behavior of output_format values ('full', 'compact', 'summary'), nor does it describe what save_to_file actually does (e.g., file location, format). It also omits any pagination or limit behavior beyond 'default 10, max 100' implied in the parameter. Given the absence of annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to fully grasp the tool's behavior and edge cases.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section provides a brief explanation for each of the six parameters: query, flexible_asset_type_id, organization_id, limit, output_format, and save_to_file. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only lists types and defaults. The explanations are concise but sufficient to understand the purpose of each parameter. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could go deeper into accepted values or constraints.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Search for flexible assets by name.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_flexible_assets (which likely lists all) and get_flexible_asset (which retrieves by ID). The purpose is immediately understandable and specific.

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?

The description implies it is for searching by name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_flexible_assets or get_flexible_asset. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools, leaving the decision to inference from the tool name. This meets the 'implied usage' bar but lacks explicit routing.

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