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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: archived assets are excluded by default with the two exceptions that re-admit them. The bare-number currency caveat is also non-obvious behavior not captured by annotations.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Each sentence carries distinct information: scope, filters, archived behavior, currency handling.

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 10-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering, the archived edge case, and the currency representation of amounts. It is largely complete, though it does not describe the response shape/pagination behavior (the auto-fetch of all pages lives only in the schema).

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 cross-parameter semantics the schema states only per-field: how include_archived and status_id interact with the default archived exclusion. It also consolidates the filterable set into one readable list.

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 assets in your AssetLab account') and immediately enumerates the filterable dimensions, so an agent can distinguish it from get_asset (singular) and list_infrastructure_assets. Scope is unambiguous 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?

Gives clear context: filter options are listed, and it clarifies the archived-asset default plus the include_archived/status_id overrides. It also routes the agent to get_organization_settings for currency and references list_asset_statuses for status IDs, though it never states when to prefer list_assets over get_asset or list_infrastructure_assets.

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