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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it specifies the scope is 'owned' assets, includes 'immutable revisions', and explicitly states 'content is never published by this tool', which clarifies the read-only behavior in domain terms. This is more than a mere restatement of annotations.

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?

The description is one sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the key behavioral caveat. It is appropriately sized for a list operation, neither overlong nor under-specified in structure. Conciseness is excellent.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters (3 undocumented), the description should provide essential operational context: what the list returns (fields, format, pagination), how parameters like limit and approval_state behave, and whether include_archived defaults to false. The description omits all of this. While annotations cover safety, the description leaves an agent guessing about invocation details, making it incomplete for effective use.

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% (only campaign_id has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameter meanings, nor does it compensate for the missing schema descriptions. Params like limit, approval_state, and include_archived remain underspecified. Given the low schema coverage, the description carries a responsibility to clarify these parameters, which it fails to do.

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 clearly states the verb (List), the resource (owned content assets and immutable revisions), and adds a scoping constraint ('owned', 'immutable revisions') that distinguishes it from get_content_asset (single asset retrieval) and create_content_asset (creation). The phrase 'content is never published by this tool' further clarifies its limited role, making purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use it—when listing owned assets and revisions—but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention that get_content_asset retrieves a single asset, nor does it advise against using it for non-owned content. The guidance is implicit from the purpose, but explicit exclusions or alternative routing are absent.

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