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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the authorization requirement ('Requires asset_costs:write scope'), which is genuinely useful context an agent cannot derive from annotations. It does not say whether deletion is hard or soft or whether it cascades, so it stops short of 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, the action front-loaded and the constraint second. No filler, no repetition of 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 one-parameter delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient: the action, the key and the auth scope are all present. It could add whether the delete is permanent, which is the one remaining unknown for the caller.

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?

There is a single required 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. 'By ID' in the description merely echoes it. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an asset cost entry') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which separates it from delete_asset and delete_infrastructure_asset_cost. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the resource noun is precise enough for an agent to identify the tool.

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 guidance, no alternatives, no stated preconditions beyond the scope. The agent is told what it does but not when this is the right tool versus update_asset_cost or get_asset_cost.

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