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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful return trait — results include access-controlled URLs — and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about pagination, URL expiry, empty-result behavior, or permissions required to read the report.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the what is front-loaded and the usage note follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content (URLs), and usage intent. Only minor behavioral details like pagination or error conditions are absent, and those are low-stakes here.

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% and the single report_id parameter is fully documented as a report UUID, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it — no note on what happens with an invalid or inaccessible report_id.

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 all assets attached to a report') and adds scope ('with their access-controlled URLs'). An agent can easily distinguish this from mutation siblings like upload_report_asset or delete_report_asset, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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: 'Useful for discovering what's already uploaded before deciding whether to add more or reference existing files,' which implicitly routes the agent here before calling upload_report_asset. No explicit exclusions or negative conditions are stated.

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