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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context these annotations cannot: the domain meaning of the records, the module taxonomy, and the notable side effect that assigning the archived-system_key status archives the asset. That last point is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure beyond structured data.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tightly related elaboration. It runs a bit long, but each sentence (definition, module guidance, archived behavior) contributes distinct, actionable information.

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 with no output schema, the description covers what the records represent, how to filter them by module, and a key downstream behavior. It does not describe the return shape, but the strong domain explanation and 100% schema coverage make it sufficiently complete to call correctly.

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 adds meaning on top by explicitly mapping the `module` enum values (facilities=assets, infrastructure=features, null/​shared=both), which the schema's own terse 'workspace'/'shared' wording muddles. This genuinely clarifies the most error-prone parameter.

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 for the organization') and then explains what the resource actually is ('lifecycle states an asset or infrastructure feature can be in'). This clearly separates it from the singular get_asset_status and the mutating create/update/delete_asset_status siblings.

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?

The description gives real decision guidance for the `module` parameter ('pick one matching the record, or a shared one'), which implies usage context. However, it never states when to reach for this list versus get_asset_status or another lookup, and there are no explicit exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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