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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the grouping logic per tool, that each asset reports its time_source, and the notable edge case that 'assets with no tool evidence have no session' (an empty-result condition). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and any hint at result ordering or size, keeping it short of a 5.

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 core definition is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the per-tool grouping rules that genuinely require the space. No filler sentences; every clause conveys non-obvious domain logic.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover semantics alone, and it explains the return concept richly (grouping windows, time_source). It stops short of describing result shape or the time_window default behavior, but is largely sufficient 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 100%, so both asset_id and time_window are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax or meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when 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 (Discover) and resource (creative session around a given asset), then defines the resource precisely: 'other assets from the same tool made within a time window of it.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like GetAssetDetails or GetMidjourneyEvolutionChain without opening the 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?

Describes what qualifies as a session and the per-tool grouping rules, which implies when the tool applies, but never states when to prefer it over siblings such as GetMidjourneyEvolutionChain or when not to call it. Usage is left to inference.

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