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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are scoped to data visible to the linked Market Brew account — but says nothing about it being a scoped read against the required id or about result size/pagination.

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?

Two short sentences, usage first and scoping second, with no padding. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence would be more valuable if paired with the missing parameter explanation.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly adequate — but the required id parameter is left completely undefined, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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% and the description never mentions the single required "id" parameter. An agent cannot tell from either source whether this id identifies the parent Content Booster, the account, or something else, which is the one piece of information this tool most needs.

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 conveys a list verb plus the resource (Content Booster assets), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it largely restates the tool name and title, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as list_content_boosters and get_content_booster_asset.

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?

"Use this when the user asks to list Content Booster assets" is circular — the trigger condition is just the tool name restated, so no real when-to-use guidance is added. There is no mention of alternatives (e.g., list_content_boosters vs this one) or when not to use it.

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