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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds semantic context about the module field's meaning, but discloses nothing further about behavior such as default ordering or result set size 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the module semantics. Little waste, though the final clause on module selection reads slightly awkwardly and could be tightened.

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 and a 4-parameter tool whose schema is fully documented (including auto-pagination not being mentioned in the description but clear from the schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the domain concept that the schema cannot.

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 adds genuine meaning: it explains that facilities means assets, infrastructure means features, and null/none means shared by both, plus how to choose. This enriches the enum interpretation beyond the raw schema values.

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 statuses') and goes further to explain what these statuses are — the lifecycle states an asset or infrastructure feature can be in. This clarifies the domain concept well, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_asset_status or list_assets.

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?

Offers guidance for the module parameter ('pick one matching the record, or a shared one'), which is useful selection advice. However, it gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as get_asset_status, leaving the tool-selection question only implicitly answered.

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