search_cached_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds useful context that this searches the cache and avoids re-downloading media, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or matching semantics.

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, conveying the tool's necessity and usage in three short sentences. Some redundancy exists between 'REQUIRED' and 'Essential', but overall it is well-organized and free of fluff.

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 moderate complexity of a filtered search tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the tool searches and why it matters. It does not explain the returned data structure, but the phrase 'past analysis results' gives a reasonable expectation.

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 descriptions are absent, but the description maps four of the five parameters to concrete user intents: brand_name, has_people, color_contains, and media_type. The limit parameter is not described, though it has a default value in 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 clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'cached media', specifying that it finds previously analyzed ad media (images and videos). It differentiates from sibling tools like analyze_ad_image/video and cleanup_media_cache by emphasizing retrieval of cached analysis results.

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 when to use the tool: 'when users want to search for cached media by brand name, find media with people, search by colors, or filter by media type.' It provides practical context but does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools.

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