Browse assets in a collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the title: it does not mention pagination via cursor, that filters narrow results, or how results are returned, which for a read tool with rich filtering is a real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification for a tool with this much filtering surface, so not a 5.

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?

This is a 13-parameter, filter-heavy listing tool with no output schema, and the description says nothing about its search/filter capabilities (text query, semantic image/video search, tags, media types, sections) or pagination. The structured fields carry the load, but the prose is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 100% across all 13 parameters, including enum values, defaults, and the meaning of the cursor and limit fields, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no parameter meaning beyond what is already documented, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 states a specific verb (Browse) and resource (assets in a collection) scoped to the user's fal Assets library, which is enough to tell it apart from list_assets and get_asset_collection at a glance. However it does not explicitly name the siblings it differs from, so it stays short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like list_assets (all assets) and get_asset_collection (collection metadata) present, the agent must infer that this tool returns the members of one collection; nothing in the text confirms that or states when to prefer it.

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