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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to spend its words on substance: what the output contains, how 'due' relates to books_depreciate, and how a reconciliation difference should be interpreted. Contexts beyond the safety profile are disclosed. Slightly muddled by the unexplained 'due'/'check' prefixes.

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 core register sentence is well front-loaded and dense with useful detail, but the colon-prefixed fragments ('due:', 'check:', 'asset') read as an unlabeled key rather than prose, and 'Free.' is an orphaned trailing token whose meaning (cost of the call?) is not obvious.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does the work of describing return fields — which it does reasonably well. But the undefined 'due'/'check' modes and the silence on the status filter and paging leave an agent without enough to choose arguments confidently for a 4-parameter listing tool.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate, and it partly does by explaining that 'asset' returns a single asset with its per-fiscal-year schedule. However, the 'status' enum (registered/disposed/all) and the limit/offset paging are never mentioned, and the description introduces 'due' and 'check' as if they were selectable modes even though no such parameters exist.

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?

Opens with a concrete framing, 'The asset register', and enumerates exactly what each row carries (cost, accumulated depreciation, book value, depreciation method, months booked, totals). It distinguishes itself from books_depreciate via the 'due' note, but says nothing about how it differs from nearby readers like books_get or books_report, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Implied usage is there — 'check' is for reconciling the register against the books and interpreting a difference as a missing purchase — but the routing is stated as free-floating field notes ('due:', 'check:') rather than explicit 'use this when' guidance, and those tokens do not map to any schema parameter. An agent must infer which arguments produce which view.

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