search_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about searching 'indexed assets and findings' and returning node ids, but it does not describe the exact response shape or empty-match behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core operation and matching scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the practical usage guidance is in the second. Every clause 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?

For a read-only two-parameter search tool, the description covers scope, purpose, and how results should be consumed ('node ids the other tools take'). With no output schema, slightly more detail about the result structure could help, but the description provides 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the query and size parameters are already well documented with examples and constraints. The description's phrase 'by name, CVE id, or keyword' is a slight restatement of the schema's field list rather than new semantic information. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across indexed assets and findings by name, CVE id, or keyword.' It clearly differentiates this tool from the attack-path and posture siblings by emphasizing the lookup/translation role, and the second sentence reinforces the specific job of resolving human-mentioned names into node ids.

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 tells an agent when to use this tool: 'Use it to resolve a name a human mentioned into the node ids the other tools take.' It gives clear usage context but does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, though no search sibling exists to exclude.

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