Search User Assets

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) already disclose safety traits. The description adds the ownership scope ('caller's user assets') and points to shared behavior with listing, but doesn't detail specifics like default ordering or whether search is case-insensitive. This is acceptable given strong annotation coverage, though the added behavioral context is moderate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It states the core action and references the listing tool to avoid repeating parameter details. Every word 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?

Given the 17-parameter schema with full coverage, the description doesn't need to enumerate options; referencing 'listing' is sufficient. It clearly scopes to 'caller's user assets' and includes read-only annotations. It could be more complete by naming the listing sibling tool explicitly, but the reference is clear. No output schema is present, but it's a search/list operation where return shape is presumably obvious given the schema.

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?

All 17 parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new param-specific semantics beyond saying the options are the same as listing, which simply reinforces that the schema already document them. It doesn't explain any parameter values or relationships beyond 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 states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('the caller's user assets'), and clarifies it's query-based. It distinguishes itself from the sibling lyzr_list_user_assets by referencing 'same filtering, sorting, and pagination options as listing', making it a distinct search variant.

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 implies when to use it: when searching assets by query string, with filtering/sorting/pagination. It references 'listing' as an alternative, providing clear context, though it doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of listing when you have a query'. Exclusions are not mentioned but the comparison to listing gives sufficient guidance.

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