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

Annotations already establish that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds the purpose of net worth tracking and states the return value, but it does not disclose edge behaviors such as duplicate handling, what happens to linked_account_id, or whether creating the asset immediately affects net worth calculations. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then uses a clean Args block to document all parameters, followed by a Returns line. There is no fluff or repetition of schema structure beyond what is needed. Each line earns its place in supporting tool invocation.

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 create operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, this description is largely complete: it covers the purpose, semantics for every parameter, optionality, and a minimal return summary. It lacks detail on error behavior, required-field emphasis, and the exact shape of the created asset response, but these gaps do not block correct invocation.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It does so thoroughly: it provides example name values, enumerates the allowed category values, specifies YYYY-MM-DD for purchase_date, marks optional parameters, and explains linked_account_id as an associated debt account such as a mortgage. This exceeds baseline compensation for schema gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a hard asset (real estate, vehicle, valuable) for net worth tracking.' It names the exact domain and the purpose, distinguishing it from other create_* tools such as create_account or create_category. The title 'Estate: Create hard asset' further reinforces the scope.

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 states a clear use context: creating a hard asset for net worth tracking. This implicitly tells an agent when to use the tool versus account or category creation tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a when-not-to-use statement, but the purpose clause is specific enough for correct selection.

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