assets_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only addition is an enumeration of returned fields (asset_tag, serial, model_name, custom_fields, etc.), which largely duplicates the output schema, and it says nothing about auth requirements, result caps, or pagination behavior despite page/limit/offset/per_page parameters existing. Minimum-viable-plus given the low bar set by annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage scope, with no filler or repetition. The return-field enumeration is the one weak spot: it is long and partially redundant with the output schema, spending space that parameter guidance would have used better.

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 not be re-explained, yet the description spends its words there while leaving the 23-parameter surface effectively undocumented, including the required action_name. For a tool this wide (openWorld, 23 params, 0% schema coverage), the description is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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 23 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full documentation burden, but it explains only the conceptual lookup modes and omits any parameter names or semantics. Critically, the sole required parameter, action_name, is never mentioned, nor are filter_operator, custom_field_operator, advanced_filter_json, or the six pagination/sorting parameters. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this text.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Search and retrieve Snipe-IT hardware") and then enumerates the lookup modes: ID, exact asset tag, exact serial, text, structured fields, custom fields, and the requestable catalog. It also distinguishes itself from the write, lifecycle, and delete siblings with an explicit exclusion, so an agent can place it correctly without opening a schema.

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?

"Use for every read-only asset question" gives the positive trigger, and "Do not use for writes, lifecycle actions, or deletion" names the exclusion conditions that route the agent to assets_write, asset_lifecycle, or delete_resource. This is explicit when/when-not guidance rather than inferred context.

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