search_cached_media

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), so the description adds some context about retrieving past analysis results and avoiding re-downloads. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any limitations, which leaves gaps beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with 'REQUIRED' and a clear purpose. It efficiently covers use cases and benefits, though the final sentence partially restates the first, making it slightly redundant.

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 search tool with all optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear role and use cases but lacks details on returned fields and limit behavior. The agent would benefit from more explicit information about what the search results contain.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions four of five parameters (brand_name, has_people, color_contains, media_type) but does not explain value formats (e.g., how to specify colors) or the limit parameter. This provides partial but not complete parameter guidance.

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 the tool searches previously analyzed ad media (images and videos) in cache, with specific use cases such as searching by brand name, people, colors, and media type. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis and cache management tools by emphasizing retrieval of past results without re-downloading.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for searching cached media with various filters and frames it as REQUIRED and Essential. It implies alternatives by noting retrieval without re-downloading, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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