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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the required authorization scope (asset_costs:write), which is genuine behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 short sentences, zero filler, front-loading the core action before the disambiguating detail and scope requirement.

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 create tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose and the required scope. It omits any indication of the return value or duplicate-handling, but is largely sufficient given the rich schema and annotations.

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%, so all 11 parameters are documented in the schema itself (including the nuance that purchase_order_id counts against remaining balance). The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Create a new asset cost entry") and adds a distinguishing anchor ("the record type shown on the AssetLab 'Expenses' page"), which helps separate it from the many sibling create_* tools. It stops short of explicitly naming the nearest siblings it could be confused with (create_expense, 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 "Expenses page" reference implies where this record surfaces but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against siblings like create_expense or create_infrastructure_asset_cost. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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