search_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter values but does not describe how filters combine, the response format, or any side effects. It only hints at behavior via parameter semantics (e.g., text_search targets name/description, page starts at 0), leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 compact, front-loaded bullet list. It begins with the purpose and then lists each parameter concisely without repetition or unnecessary prose. Every line adds value.

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?

The description fully covers parameters but lacks information about the response structure (no output schema), filter combination logic, or sorting. With 7 required parameters and no output schema, the agent is not fully informed about what the tool returns or how to interpret results.

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 description adds rich meaning for all 7 parameters: enumerated values for asset_type and health_status, owners as emails, tags as a list, text_search scope, items_per_page meaning, and page base. The input schema has no descriptions, so this is the sole source of parameter semantics and is highly comprehensive.

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 types (assets, tables, dashboards, pipelines). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_incidents and asset_by_urn, which target different resources or operations.

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 implies this tool is for searching assets and related entities, but it does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools or provide exclusions. The enumerated asset types give implicit context, but there is no direct 'use this when...' guidance.

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