Search cached raw asset scalar values

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description adds critical behavioral details: it never reads Cascade directly (cached operation), response format (JSON text with structuredContent authoritative), oversized behavior (bounded _cache metadata), and dependency on cascade_read's read_mode. These significantly enhance transparency without contradicting 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?

The description is five sentences, each adding distinct value: usage gate, core function, return details, data source caveat, oversized behavior, and read_mode relationship. No redundant or extraneous content; tightly packed with information.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers high-level behavior but lacks details on parameter usage (e.g., value_contains, cursor, limit) and full return structure. While it references cascade_read and cascade_read_response for context, the omission of parameter descriptions and output format leaves gaps in completeness.

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 only 11% coverage (only asset_handle described as REQUIRED). The description adds no parameter-specific information, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. It does not explain the other 8 parameters (value_contains, pointer_prefix, etc.), leaving their semantics entirely to the schema's empty descriptions.

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 tool searches full scalar values in the cached raw Cascade response, distinguishing it from shortened previews. It specifies the resource (cached raw asset scalar values) and the action (search), and mentions a prerequisite (use after cascade_read), making the purpose highly specific and actionable.

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 explicitly instructs to use after cascade_read, providing a clear prerequisite. It contrasts with shortened previews, implying when not to use, but does not name alternative tools like cascade_asset_search_keys or cascade_asset_get_value. The mention of oversized responses and cascade_read_response gives additional context without exhaustive exclusion.

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