explain_asset_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it is a 'super-admin diagnostic' that 'shows' match details, implying read-only and privilege requirements. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it mention rate limits, output format, or side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and context without wasted words. Every word contributes.

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 tool's modest complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and output concept ('which fields/terms matched'). It omits details like response format or error conditions, but the diagnostic nature and schema fill in much of the context.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add substantive detail about parameters beyond what the schema already provides ('id', 'q', 'text_q' are self-explanatory). It does not clarify mutual exclusivity of q and text_q, but that is already partially in the schema.

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 a specific verb ('show') and resource ('which Elasticsearch fields/terms matched a query for a given asset'), with role context ('super-admin diagnostic'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_assets by focusing on explanation rather than execution.

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 phrase 'super-admin diagnostic' provides clear context for when to use this tool (diagnosing search matching for assets) and implies it is not for general search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the diagnostic framing gives adequate usage direction.

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