Search recommended asset sources

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool searches sources and clarifies exclusion behavior (manual sources unless agentReadyOnly=false), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasteful words. The first sentence announces the core action and filters; the second clarifies the important exclusion rule. Every word earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema (explaining return values), the description covers the main functionality and filtering options adequately. It mentions the key agentReadyOnly condition. Minor gap: does not explicitly state that it returns sources (not assets), but that is inferred from tool name and category. Overall complete for a search tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions four out of five parameters (query, category, license, access) and implicitly references agentReadyOnly through the exclusion rule. However, it does not explain each parameter's behavior or constraints in detail, leaving some ambiguity (e.g., what 'access mode' values are available). Partially compensates but not fully.

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 it searches 'agent-ready asset sources' with specific filters (category, license, access mode, text query). It distinguishes from other search tools (siblings like fab_search_assets) by specifying the scope and the exclusion of manual/provider-page sources unless agentReadyOnly=false.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for searching agent-ready sources, with a note that manual/provider-page sources are excluded by default. It implies that for non-agent-ready sources one might need to set agentReadyOnly=false or use other tools, but does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives.

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