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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the failure mode ('guessing a field name gets the whole query rejected') and the prerequisite of calling screener_fields(), which is behavioral information not in the 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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the essential filter DSL with a concrete example, then the prerequisite warning. No filler or redundancy; every sentence 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?

For an unannotated schema with no output schema, the description covers the most complex aspect (filter syntax) and a prerequisite, but omits sort/limit semantics and any mention of the return shape or pagination. Given the tool's moderate complexity, these are notable gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly documents the 'filter' parameter with syntax, examples, and supported operators. However, 'sort' and 'limit' are not explained at all, leaving their semantics (especially sort syntax) to inference. Partial compensation only.

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 opening sentence 'Filter the whole asset universe server-side and return the matches' names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this as a whole-universe screener, separate from sibling tools like search_assets or get_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?

The description gives clear context: this is for server-side screening of the entire universe, and it explicitly instructs to call screener_fields() first to avoid query rejection. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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