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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that protected files are not delivered, which is real behavioral context. However it says nothing about pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter, result limits beyond the schema max, or what a discovery result contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and the key exclusion. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme brevity is also the source of the missing guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. But for a paged discovery tool with three parameters (one a cursor) at 0% schema description coverage, and multiple similarly-named search siblings, the description leaves the agent without enough to choose or call it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the schema only provides types/bounds (query 1–120 chars, limit 1–25 default 10, cursor regex) with no explanation of what query matches (names? text? concepts?) or what cursor points to. The description provides no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

It names a verb+resource (discover assets) and adds a distinguishing scope — policy-filtered approved assets, and explicitly not delivering protected files, which separates it from deliver_approved_asset. But 'discover' is vague about what is actually returned (metadata? listings? previews?) and doesn't tell the agent how results relate to the other search/catalog 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?

It implicitly contrasts with delivery ('without delivering protected files') but gives no positive when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over search_catalog or search_concepts, and no prerequisites (e.g., auth/licensing requirements).

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