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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds materially by disclosing the auth scope requirement and the mandatory hierarchical resolution sequence, though it says nothing about failure behavior or duplicate name/asset_id handling.

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 purpose, then the permission requirement, then the IMPORTANT hierarchy block. Each sentence carries distinct information with no padding, though the arrow-notation hierarchy sentence is dense for a description field.

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 38-parameter tool whose schema is fully self-documenting and whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description supplies what structured fields cannot express: the scope gate and the cross-entity ID resolution order. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description never indicates what is returned on success.

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 100%, which sets the baseline at 3, and the description earns a point above it by explaining the semantics the schema cannot: the specific top-down sequence for the three location IDs and the parallel hierarchy for system_class_id -> system_group_id -> system_id.

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 and resource ('Create a new asset') and immediately adds the required scope, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent create siblings such as create_infrastructure_asset or create_asset_placement, which an agent must choose between.

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 gives clear operational context: assets:write is required, and it prescribes prerequisite resolution calls (list_sites -> list_buildings -> list_locations) before invoking. It stops short of stating when to use this tool instead of a sibling creator, so it is strong on prerequisites but silent on alternatives.

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