search_cached_media

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful context like 'previously analyzed' and 'without re-downloading media.' However, it does not disclose details about return formatting, ordering, or behavior when no results are found. The added context is helpful but not extensive.

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, front-loaded with 'REQUIRED,' and uses three short sentences that each add value. It captures the purpose, use cases, and benefit without extraneous information.

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 five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main search dimensions and conveys the tool's purpose and typical use cases. It doesn't explain the return structure, but it implies the retrieval of prior analysis results, which is sufficient for an annotated read-only search tool.

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 names the searchable filters (brand_name, has_people, color_contains, media_type) and maps them to user intents, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain value formats or the meaning of the limit parameter, leaving some gaps.

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 finds 'previously analyzed ad media (images and videos) in cache' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'cached media' and the search use cases (brand name, people, colors, media type).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'REQUIRED for finding previously analyzed ad media' and lists specific user intents (search by brand, find media with people, search by colors, filter by media type). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the context is clear and actionable.

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