search_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the search criteria. It fails to disclose return format, matching behavior, case sensitivity, or the meaning of 'tag' given the schema lacks a tag parameter. This leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple search operation.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the search returns, whether it returns full asset info or just names, or how tags relate to the provided parameters. More context is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter detail and actually introduces confusion by mentioning 'tag' search without a corresponding schema parameter, potentially misleading the agent about query capabilities.

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 action ('Search for assets') and the criteria ('by name, class, or tag'), which distinguishes it from sibling list_assets and get_asset_info. However, 'tag' is not supported by the input schema (only query and class_filter exist), introducing slight ambiguity about the intended scope.

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 explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance is given. The description implies searching is the use case, but it does not differentiate when to use search_assets versus list_assets, get_asset_info, or other asset-related tools.

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