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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. Beyond that, the description discloses genuine behavioral domain context: condition scores are 0-100 with a named band mapping, and amounts are returned as bare numbers with no currency, requiring a second tool call. That is meaningfully more than the annotations provide.

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?

Four compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The currency caveat at the end is slightly tangential to a listing call but earns its place because there is no output schema to explain the returned amount format.

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 no output schema, the description usefully pre-empts a misinterpretation of returned amounts and explains the score scale, and the schema fully documents the nine optional filters and pagination. Coverage is strong for a read-only list tool; only the absence of any mention of what a returned record contains 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by interpreting the numeric edge cases the schema leaves abstract: condition_min/condition_max are explained via the Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor/Critical bands, and the date-range filters are summarized as an assessment window. It does not cover pagination semantics, which the schema handles.

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 uses a precise verb and resource ('List point-in-time condition assessments recorded against assets') and immediately scopes the operation as a filtered listing. The score-band definitions make clear what domain concept a 'condition assessment' encodes, so the agent can distinguish it from get_asset_condition_assessment or create_asset_condition_assessment 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?

It enumerates the available filter dimensions (asset, assessor, method, score range, date range) which tells the agent when this tool is the right one, and it adds cross-tool routing guidance ('call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating one'). It stops short of an explicit when-not statement or naming a sibling alternative, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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