search_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search for assets', which is the basic operation; it does not mention pagination, sorting, filtering, return format, or any search-specific behavior like full-text vs. metadata search. An agent has little insight into what happens beyond the schema's parameter list.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the core action ('Search for assets') is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it an efficient definition, even if it is brief.

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 search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about result format, pagination behavior, default document types, or how it differs from similarly named search tools. Without annotations or an output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and expectations.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds only the phrase 'query string', which loosely aligns with the 'query' parameter but adds no meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting."

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 ('Search') and resource ('assets in Iconik'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_faceted, search_by_metadata, or search_segments, which all also search assets in some manner, so it falls 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?

The phrase 'using a query string' implies a simple free-text search use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over search_faceted or search_by_metadata. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is purely implicit."

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