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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required 'asset_statuses:write' scope, an auth prerequisite not present in structured fields, which is directly actionable for the agent. It stops short of noting uniqueness constraints or side effects, so it is not 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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed immediately by the prerequisite scope. No filler, no restating the title.

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 simple three-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers purpose and the auth requirement adequately. Only the absence of uniqueness/validation behavior keeps it from being fully complete.

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 enum explanation and default), and description are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraint beyond what the schema already 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 status') and the parenthetical '(lifecycle state for assets)' clarifies the domain concept, which matters among many 'create_*' siblings. It does not distinguish itself from the nearest alternative, update_asset_status, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. With ~90 create_* siblings and a closely related update_asset_status, an agent gets no signal about when this is the right call versus bulk_create or updating an existing status.

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