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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does add one meaningful trait — results are restricted to assets the caller is authorized to see for the chosen scope — but says nothing about ordering, page size, or what happens when the scope contains no authorized assets.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably over-terse for a tool that has conditional parameters, but every word present 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?

The tool is simple, has rich annotations and an output schema (so return shape need not be described), and most parameters are documented. Still missing is anything about pagination behavior via cursor, result ordering, or the relationship between scope and project_id, which the agent must infer from the schema.

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 67%: cursor and project_id are already documented in-schema, including the important note that project_id is "never proof of access." The description contributes the meaning of the scope parameter (project vs account) as an authorization boundary, but does not explain the conditional requirement of project_id when scope=project, which the allOf block enforces.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with the resource ("assets") and qualifies the result set as authorized-only for a project or account scope. It does not differentiate from related siblings such as inspect_asset or get_asset_delivery, and it never says what kind of assets these are, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent is not told whether to call this versus inspect_asset, get_asset_delivery, or list_projects. The only implicit cue is the word "List", which suggests enumeration rather than detail retrieval.

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