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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no provider spend is incurred, which is the key side-effect question for this tool, but it does not say whether the preview persists anything, whether it requires an existing project/assessment, or what 'highest-priority' is ranked against.

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. The core verb and the cost guarantee are both stated immediately.

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 (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), but with no output schema the description should indicate what the preview actually returns (a brief, a proposal, a cost estimate). That omission leaves the agent unsure what to do with the result.

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% for the single required parameter projectId. The description says nothing about it, so an agent gets no confirmation that projectId selects the project whose recommended asset is previewed, nor any format guidance. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Preview the highest-priority asset brief') and distinguishes the result from the sibling create_recommended_asset by framing it as a preview. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation.

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 phrase 'without starting provider spend' implies a dry-run check before committing to create_recommended_asset, which is useful implicit routing. However, it never states explicitly when to choose this over creating the asset, nor any prerequisite such as an existing assessment or growth plan.

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