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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add value elsewhere. It does so by enumerating the returned fields (cost, NBV, monthly depreciation, status), which is meaningful transparency given there is no output schema. It does not mention volume, ordering, or pagination behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences with zero waste: what it returns, when to use it, and how to filter. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a clean annotation set, the description covers purpose, triggering intents, filter options, and returned fields. Only return-shape details like ordering or record limits are absent, which is a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 both the status enum and the company parameter are already fully documented in the schema, including the default of 'active'. The description restates the status values but adds no syntax or format beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List fixed assets on the register') plus the exact data fields returned (cost, net book value, monthly depreciation, status). An agent can clearly separate this from adjacent finance tools like get_capital_allowance_hint or get_balance_sheet without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the user intents that should route here: asset register questions, depreciation schedules, NBV, and capital items tracked per asset. It also states the status filter options. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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