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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and mutation profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds the required asset_statuses:write scope, but omits meaningful behavior for a non-idempotent create, such as whether duplicate status names are rejected or silently duplicated.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the prerequisite. No redundant restatement of the title and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 a fully documented schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate for calling the tool. It leaves one real gap for a create tool flagged non-idempotent: no indication of uniqueness constraints on the status name or what happens on a duplicate submission.

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%: name, module (with its enum and default), and description are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the conceptual framing that a status is a lifecycle state, which does not extend parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Create') with a precise resource ('asset status') and adds a clarifying gloss, 'lifecycle state for assets', which disambiguates it from the many other create_* tools. It does not explicitly name the update/delete/list counterparts, but the entity is specific enough that an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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-relevant information is the required write scope, which is a prerequisite rather than guidance. It never states when to use this tool versus update_asset_status (modifying an existing status) or list_asset_statuses (checking existing ones), so the agent must infer that this is for net-new statuses.

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