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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that content is never published, which aligns with annotations but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary action and add a critical caveat. No redundant information; every word contributes to clarity.

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?

With output schema present, return values are handled externally. However, the description and low parameter coverage leave gaps: filtering by approval_state or archived status are not explained, and the effect of limit is unclear. The tool's simplicity is somewhat undercut by undocumented parameters.

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 only 25% (1 of 4 parameters described). The tool description does not explain the remaining parameters (limit, approval_state, include_archived) or their usage, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Clearly states it lists owned content assets and immutable revisions, with explicit note that it does not publish. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like create_content_asset or approve_content_asset.

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?

While the description hints at appropriate use by stating it does not publish, it does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_content_asset or update_content_asset. No direct when-not or alternative references.

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