aura_search_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the assets are 'free' but says nothing about result shape, pagination via offset/limit, licensing terms, or rate limits, leaving a search tool with five parameters under-described.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, but the second sentence is a bare fragment ('Keywords, media_type image or video') that reads as notes rather than specification. Brevity here reflects under-specification more than discipline.

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?

A five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage needs more from the description than two sentences. Enum values, defaults, pagination semantics, and the absence of required parameters are all left unaddressed.

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 loosely covers only two of five parameters ('Keywords' for query and 'media_type' for mediaType, with a naming mismatch), and never explains sort, limit, or offset, whose values drive pagination and ordering.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search free Aura assets') and narrows the domain to 'images and video', which separates it from aura_search_components, aura_search_skills, and aura_search_design_systems. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the broader aura_search_all sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no routing to alternatives such as aura_search_all or aura_trending. The agent must infer from the word 'assets' alone that this is the media-specific search path.

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