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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds important context about access restrictions (managed community, free business exclusion, permission check required), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Description is a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence serves a purpose (action, prerequisite, restriction, warning). Slightly verbose with imperative instructions but overall concise and well-structured.

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 has 2 required parameters and no output schema. The description covers access restrictions and prerequisites but does not explain the parameters or what the tool returns. Somewhat complete for guiding usage, but lacks parameter and output details.

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 0% (description does not explain parameters). The schema provides basic types and constraints for communityId and assetObjectIds, but the description adds no additional meaning. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Batch get creative assets for a managed community', specifying the verb (batch get) and resource (creative assets) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit_creative_asset or list_magic_contents.

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?

Explicitly instructs to check business permissions, notes free businesses cannot use, recommends calling check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, and warns about grace-period and resubscribe link. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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