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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds the ownership constraint ('owned library asset') and the world-scoping nuance for locations, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe return format, but with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences with no waste. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by a usage hint. It is appropriately sized for a read tool with a small schema.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the core action and some parameter context. However, given 0% schema coverage, it should explain the parameters more fully (e.g., what identifiers look like, the kind enum implications). It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in parameter explanation.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the three parameters. The description mentions 'kind' and 'world_id' from discovery and that 'locations may be world-scoped,' which adds some meaning for world_id's conditional relevance. However, it does not clarify asset_id, kind enum values, format, or constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately for the parameter documentation gap.

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: 'Read one owned library asset's descriptive state and media.' This distinguishes it clearly from write siblings (create_world_asset, update_world_asset, delete_world_asset) and from list_world_assets. It does not explicitly name list_world_assets or get_world as the alternative for discovery, but the 'one' vs list distinction is implicit.

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 says 'Use the kind and world_id from discovery,' which gives a sequencing hint about where to obtain parameter values. However, it doesn't state when to use this tool versus get_world or list_world_assets, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly framed.

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