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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful invariant (one placement per asset globally) that an agent cannot infer from structured fields, though it says nothing about pagination or ordering behavior.

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 action and scope, then the invariant, then filter guidance. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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 list tool whose safety annotations are complete and whose pagination is documented in the schema, the description covers purpose, invariant and filter semantics adequately. With no output schema, a brief note on what a placement record contains would close the remaining gap.

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, but the description goes beyond schema text by explaining the intent behind floorplan_id and asset_id and how they are used together. region_id is left to the schema alone, which keeps 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') and differentiates clearly from siblings like get_asset_placement by implying a collection rather than a single record. The cardinality note ('Each asset has at most one placement globally') further pins down the resource's semantics.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance for two filters: floorplan_id to see all pins on a floor, asset_id to locate a specific asset. It does not name the alternative sibling (get_asset_placement) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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