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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description earns no credit and is not contradictory. The description does add genuine behavior beyond the annotations: the default ordering (newest purchase first), the fields each row carries, and the fact that 'q' scans notes and supplier in addition to name/serial. Pagination behavior and any default limit are left unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the field set, then the filters — a sensible information hierarchy. It is a single dense run-on sentence, but nearly every clause carries usable information, so it is not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (name, status, purchase date, net cost and currency, supplier, invoice, holder, serial, location) is exactly what an agent needs to know about the result shape. For a four-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety, nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it mostly does: it enumerates the status enum values (in_use / stored / disposed) and explains that 'q' matches name, serial, notes, or supplier. 'holder_user_id' is only implied via the 'who holds it' field list, and 'limit' (max 50) is never mentioned, leaving one clear gap.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource pair ('register of things it owns — equipment, devices, furniture') plus the ordering ('newest purchase first') and the exact field set returned. An agent can distinguish it from asset_get purely from the definition, since this one enumerates a collection rather than a single record.

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?

Provides clear usage context: it is a browse/search endpoint, all four filters are optional, and it is read-only. It does not explicitly say when to prefer asset_get instead of filtering this list, which is the only missing guidance.

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