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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it explains the CDN delivery shape, that `url` is the optimized 1920px default and `originalUrl` the original bytes, that both never expire, and that rendering MCP clients also receive the image.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the primary return behavior, and every clause adds useful information about the response shape. No sentence is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the important return-value details and image-delivery behavior. The main gap is that `assetId` semantics are not documented.

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% for the single `assetId` parameter. The description never explains what `assetId` is, where to obtain it, or its expected format, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Returns the asset') and explains the returned fields and CDN URL shape, so the purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from websiteAssets_list or other asset siblings, keeping it below 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 description does not state when to use this tool versus websiteAssets_list, websiteAssets_update, or other alternatives. Usage is only implied by the singular 'the asset' and required assetId, with no explicit guidance.

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