my_assets_search

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description is consistent with them. It adds the useful 'current user' scoping but does not disclose pagination behavior, matching semantics, or result ordering; with annotation coverage, this is minimal but not contradictory.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core operation and scope. It is efficient, though very sparse and lacking in supporting detail.

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 tool with three optional pagination and filtering parameters, no output schema, and many sibling asset/search tools, this description is too thin. It omits how search matches assets, what skip/limit control, and what differentiates this from list_assets, making it incomplete for confident tool selection.

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 0%, and the description does not explain skip, limit, or the search parameter beyond the general word 'search'. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving parameter meanings mostly underspecified.

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 ('search') and resource ('assets') with a clear ownership scope ('owned by the current user'), which helps distinguish it from store or sketchfab search tools. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_assets, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_assets, search_entities, or store_search. The ownership scope implies a use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative selection rules.

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