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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well on outputs: it enumerates all three return states and the specific fields (public_url, collection_path, preset, published_at) each yields. It stops short of stating read-only/absence of side effects or any auth/rate-limit behavior, but the state disclosure is genuinely richer than the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the reverse-lookup framing, then a compact enumerated list of the three states. Every clause maps to a distinct outcome, though the enumeration is dense enough that a slightly tighter phrasing could carry the same information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values — and it does so exhaustively, covering the published, in-collection-but-unpublished, and uncollected cases with their fields. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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% — asset_h is documented as a SHA-1 40-hex hash and tenant_id as auto-injected from auth — so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is the correct baseline given full schema coverage.

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+resource with explicit scope: 'Reverse lookup: finds if an asset is in ANY published collection and returns the public URL.' The 'ANY published collection' phrasing and the 'Reverse lookup' framing distinguish it from the forward sibling GetCollectionPublicUrls, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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 three-state breakdown tells the agent what this returns, which implicitly signals when it is useful (checking publication status of a known asset). However, it never names an alternative or states an exclusion — e.g. when to prefer GetAssetDetails or GetCollectionPublicUrls instead. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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