Browse assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that this spans semantic search plus multiple library sections, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or result shape that the annotations don't already imply.

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 no filler, and the primary verb launches the sentence. It is appropriately sized, though it offers no structural cues for the complex 13-parameter surface.

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?

For a 13-parameter, no-required-input search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope but omits anything about returned results or pagination semantics (the cursor is undocumented outside the schema). Adequate but with clear gaps given 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%, so all 13 parameters are already documented at the schema level. The description's mention of media, uploads, favorites, collections and tags loosely maps to the 'section' and filter params but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (browse and semantically search) and resource (fal Assets) and enumerates the scopes covered (media, uploads, favorites, collections, tags, character references). It's clear what the tool does, but it never names a sibling such as list_asset_collection_assets or get_asset to sharpen differentiation from the many adjacent asset tools.

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 lists what can be browsed but gives no when-to-use guidance, no selection criteria versus alternatives (e.g. list_asset_collection_assets, search_requests), and no exclusions. The enumeration of sections implies scope but stops short of routing the agent.

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