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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the asset-scoping and instantiation relationship, which is helpful context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or output shape. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with a useful parenthetical purpose. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

This tool has one well-documented required parameter, a read-only annotation profile, and an output schema. The description provides the essential purpose and relationship to add_asset_to_page, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and the 'id' parameter is documented as 'Asset ID (from list_assets).' The description reinforces the asset context but adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'List the widgets that belong to an asset.' The parenthetical adds the purpose, 'previewing what add_asset_to_page will instantiate,' which distinguishes this from generic list_widgets or list_template_widgets. Clear and 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 communicates when to use the tool: when you need to see widgets for an asset, especially to preview what add_asset_to_page will create. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the asset-scoped context and the add_asset_to_page link provide solid guidance.

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