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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the return shape (asset details plus linked tasks), which matters because there is no output schema; it stops short of any auth or pagination notes.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what is returned before the routing advice. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return payload, and it explains where each required ID comes from (context block for asset_id, schema points to list_my_estates for estate_id). Complete enough for a two-param read tool.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance guidance the schema lacks ('Get the asset_id from that context block'), helping the agent source the ID correctly rather than guessing.

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 ('Get one asset's full details plus the tasks linked to it, by asset ID'), and the scope word 'one' plus the linked-tasks payload cleanly separates it from the list-style get_assets and the task-scoped get_task_detail.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('when the user asks about a specific asset's tasks or you need details beyond what the Assets context block shows'). No explicit when-not or named alternative, but the context-block threshold is a concrete routing rule.

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