Search game assets

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

Annotations already declare safe and idempotent behavior (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds significant behavioral details beyond these annotations: concurrent search, normalization, license filtering, relevance ranking, de-duplication, source diversification, caching, and cursor pagination. There is no contradiction with 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Search enabled remote and local game-asset sources concurrently') and follows with a list of processing steps. Every word earns its place. However, the sentence is somewhat dense; breaking it into two sentences could improve readability without losing 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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the processing pipeline well but does not describe the structure of the returned results. Since there is no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what fields each asset result contains (e.g., id, name, source, url, license). The mention of cursor pagination helps, but details on the response envelope are missing.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (all 10 parameters have descriptions). The tool description itself does not add any extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional semantic value for parameters.

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 it searches remote and local game-asset sources concurrently, which directly contrasts with sibling tools: get_game_asset (single asset retrieval), list_asset_sources (listing providers), and index_local_assets (local indexing). The verb 'Search' and resource 'game-asset sources' are specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite instructions. For example, it doesn't mention that the user should first use list_asset_sources to obtain provider IDs for the sources parameter, or that index_local_assets must be run beforehand to make local assets searchable.

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