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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is lighter. It usefully adds that only 'ready' assets are returned and that IDs are stable references. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite exposing limit/cursor, so it adds some but not rich context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its purpose come first. It is efficiently worded, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 is a cursor-paginated list tool with no output schema, so the description should explain the return shape and how to page. It instead stops at 'stable IDs', leaving the agent without enough to call or iterate the tool confidently.

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% and both parameters (limit, cursor) are bare integers/strings in the schema. The description never mentions pagination, page size, or how the cursor is obtained and reused, so it fails to compensate for the documentation 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 ('List ready account library images') with a clear qualifier ('ready') and a downstream purpose ('for promotion editing'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as get_asset_status or import_image, which an agent must sort out on its own.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no named alternative. The phrase 'for promotion editing' hints at context but never says why an agent would pick this over get_asset_status or list_promotions.

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