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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds useful authentication context with the required scope and ties the record type to the AssetLab Expenses page, but it does not describe duplicate handling, side effects, or failure behavior.

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 description is two concise sentences with the core action and record context front-loaded, followed by the authorization requirement. There is no wasted text.

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?

With complete schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient for invoking the tool. Its main contextual gap is the lack of sibling differentiation from create_expense, but the record-type framing and scope requirement make the definition usable.

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 all twelve parameters are already documented in the schema, including required fields, enums, UUID formats, and cross-reference hints. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: creating an asset cost entry, and adds that it is the record type shown on the AssetLab Expenses page. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as create_expense or create_infrastructure_asset_cost.

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 only usage-related information is the required asset_costs:write scope. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_expense or create_infrastructure_asset_cost, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the scope.

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