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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait, that results are limited to 'authorized' assets, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result caps despite page/pageSize parameters.

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?

Two short sentences with no bloat, but the second largely restates the first with a slightly longer field list. Its one new contribution, 'authorized', is buried mid-sentence instead of front-loaded.

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 a 7-parameter, zero-coverage search tool with no output schema, the description covers the filter vocabulary but omits pagination and expected result shape. Annotations handle the safety profile, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than critical.

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. It maps concepts to filters (name/serial → query, type → type, site → locationId, status → status, ID → assetId), but page and pageSize are never mentioned and the query/assetId split is left ambiguous.

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 ('Find') and resource ('authorized assets'/'equipment'), and enumerates the lookup keys. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like view_assets, view_asset, or get_asset_details, so an agent cannot tell search-vs-retrieve apart from the description alone.

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?

'Use this when identifying equipment by name, serial number, type or site' gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., when the asset ID is already known, use view_asset).

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