post-search-assets

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 mentions a constraint (mutual exclusivity of 'image' and 'images') but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a search tool with 13 parameters.

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 concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that directly address key points (purpose, requirement, and exclusivity). There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could benefit from more structure or bullet points for clarity.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, and return values, which are crucial for a search tool. The high schema coverage helps but does not compensate for these gaps.

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 description coverage is 85%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value by noting the requirement for at least one of 'query,' 'filter,' 'image,' or 'images' and the mutual exclusivity of 'image' and 'images,' but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or explanations 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 the tool's purpose as 'Search for assets,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('assets'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-assets' or 'post-search-models,' leaving ambiguity about scope or method.

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 provides minimal guidance by stating that at least one of 'query,' 'filter,' 'image,' or 'images' must have a value, and that 'image' and 'images' are mutually exclusive. However, it lacks context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-assets' or 'post-search-models,' and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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