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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine domain invariant ('each asset has at most one placement globally'), which helps the agent interpret results, but says nothing about volume, ordering, or auto-pagination behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the cardinality invariant, then the filter routing. No sentence is filler.

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 read-only, fully-annotated list tool with a complete input schema and no output schema, the description supplies what's needed to call it correctly. The unexplained region_id filter is the only notable hole, and it's low-risk.

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, and the description goes beyond it by tying floorplan_id and asset_id to concrete query intents. It adds no guidance for region_id, page, or per_page, keeping it from a 5.

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 ('List asset pin placements on floorplans') with enough domain precision to separate it from get_asset_placement (singular) and the other asset sub-resource list tools.

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 explains what each filter mode achieves ('filter by floorplan_id to see all pins on one floor, or by asset_id to find where a specific asset is placed'), effectively telling the agent which parameter to reach for per intent. It stops short of naming when to prefer get_asset_placement or noting what happens when no filters are supplied.

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