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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that the call is safe, and the description adds what the caller will receive: URL, name, description, and solution profile. This is useful because there is no output schema to carry that information.

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 no filler; the core action and return fields are in the first clause. All content earns its place.

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 simple read operation with only two parameters, the description provides enough information to understand the return value, and the schema handles the parameters. It could be more complete by clarifying what 'solution profile' means or how the context parameter affects the call, but nothing critical 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 50%: context has a description, but projectId only has a UUID format/pattern. The tool description adds no explanation of either parameter, though projectId is largely self-explanatory and context is already documented.

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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get the asset ... associated with a project') and enumerates the returned fields (URL, name, description, solution profile). This differentiates it from sibling retrieval tools like get_project or get_project_overview by targeting the website/product asset rather than generic project data.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool rather than get_project, get_page_dossier, or update_asset_profile. The description states only what the tool does, not the conditions or exclusions that should route an agent to it.

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