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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states 'Free, read-only,' describes pagination ('Paginated via cursor'), lists return fields ('Returns asset_id, signed url, type, detected_product_name, is_primary_product, sources'), and explains filtering semantics. No contradictions with 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?

The description is concise (5 sentences) and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then lists filters, provides usage guidance, mentions return fields and safety, and concludes with pagination. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields. It covers all 7 parameters, provides pagination info, and gives usage context. For a read-only list tool with good annotations, this description is fully complete.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that powersource_id filters 'this scan only', product_name filters 'the vision tagger's read', type includes a list of examples, and is_primary_product filters to the scanned product's images. It also notes pagination via cursor. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states it lists images for a brand with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'images for a brand'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_brand_asset and delete_brand_asset by providing usage context: 'Use this BEFORE generating any image-based output so you pick from the brand's real assets, not generic stock.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this BEFORE generating any image-based output so you pick from the brand's real assets, not generic stock.' It also notes the tool is 'Free, read-only.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools for adding or deleting assets, which would strengthen the guidelines.

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