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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: pagination mechanics via next_cursor and the discovery-first pattern. It doesn't cover rate limits or ordering, keeping this from 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the discovery-then-page action and the return shape. Every clause earns its place; only the mild redundancy of naming 'asset IDs, descriptions, media links' borders on filler, but it aids selection.

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 read-only paginated list with no output schema, the description covers the workflow (discover, select kind, page), optional filters, and return contents. Adequate for correct invocation; missing only ordering/rate-limit detail that annotations don't supply.

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 coverage is 50%: limit and cursor are documented in the schema, but kind and world_id lack descriptions there. The description compensates partially by stating kind is a selector and world_id is an optional filter, and it explicitly mentions next_cursor semantics via 'page through'.

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 clearly states a specific verb (list/page through) and enumerates the asset kinds it lists (characters, locations, objects, outfits, abilities, cameras). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_world_asset (singular fetch) and update/delete_world_asset, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.

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?

Implies usage ('Select kind; optionally filter world_id') and describes a discovery-then-paginate flow, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs siblings like get_world_asset or search. An agent can infer this is the bulk-listing tool, but routing isn't spelled out.

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