search_assets

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavior. It provides query syntax examples and pagination parameters, which gives some insight. However, it does not explain search semantics like case sensitivity or wildcard support, nor what the response contains, leaving notable gaps.

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 well-structured with an opening summary, query examples, and an args list. It is concise with no fluff, though the Args section restates parameter names with brief explanations, which is slightly redundant but still useful.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key aspects of constructing a query and pagination. Minor missing details like case sensitivity or wildcard support are acceptable for a first encounter, but more explicit behavior would make it fully complete.

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 schema has no descriptions for its parameters (0% coverage), so the description needs to compensate. It defines query as 'Asset search query' and page/per_page as 'Page number' and 'Results per page', which adds basic meaning. The query examples further clarify valid field:value syntax, going beyond what the schema offers.

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 'Search assets by various fields' with a clear verb and resource, and query examples specify exact fields like name, asset_tag, and serial_number. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as filter_assets or get_assets, so it misses the top score.

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 query examples imply this tool is for searching assets by specific fields, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus filter_assets or other asset search methods. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the usage context is only implied.

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