Search the catalogue for a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful result context by saying each media is answered with its state in the project, but it does not discuss pagination behavior, authentication assumptions, or the response envelope.

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 combines the trigger, search behavior, and result semantics without filler. Despite the large schema, it stays appropriately brief because parameter details are delegated to the schema.

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 38-parameter search tool, the schema exhaustively covers parameter semantics and annotations cover read-only safety. The description gives partial return context by mentioning each media's state in the project, and while it does not explain pagination or the response envelope in detail, the remaining gaps are modest given the schema richness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage across 38 parameters, detailed range, enum, and format semantics are already in the schema. The description only summarizes filter families such as price, metrics, topics, languages, and countries, adding an overview but little parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 provides a specific verb (searches), a clear resource (the media catalogue), and a scoped use case (for one of the user's projects), plus the distinctive return behavior of each media's state in that project. This separates it from generic catalogue or media-detail siblings such as growwer_get_catalogue_media.

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 opening clause, 'Use this when the user wants media to publish on for one of their projects,' gives a clear triggering context. It does not explicitly name when to use an alternative sibling, so it lacks full when/when-not routing guidance.

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