search_by_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only operation and the metadata-field-value criterion is stated, but the description does not explain matching semantics (exact vs partial), pagination behavior, or response format. These are meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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 redundant wording and the key information is front-loaded. It could add one more sentence of guidance without becoming bloated, but as written it is efficient.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It does not cover pagination, exact-match behavior, how metadata fields are designated, or how this search differs from sibling tools like search_assets and search_faceted. An agent can make a basic call from the required parameters but may mis-select or mis-parameterize the tool in realistic scenarios.

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 already documents metadata_field and value, and the description reinforces that they are the core pairing. However, it adds no detail about page/per_page, valid metadata field names, or how the value is matched, so it only partially compensates for the 50% schema description coverage.

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 clear verb ('Search'), a resource ('assets'), and a specific criterion ('specific metadata field values'). This distinguishes it from generic search tools like search_assets and date-range search, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 'by specific metadata field values' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: looking up assets by a known metadata field and value. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_assets, search_faceted, or search_by_date_range.

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