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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description supplements this by specifying the status categories returned (lifecycle, deployment, adoption, settled revenue). It adds useful behavioral scope without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense sentence delivers the verb, resource, scope, and the exact status dimensions. Every word earns its place, and the key information is 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 simple one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the input audience, the output areas, and the operation type. The annotated read-only and non-destructive hints further cover the safety context an agent needs.

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?

The only parameter, asset_id, has no schema description, but the tool description's phrase 'for one code asset' clarifies that asset_id identifies the code asset whose status is being read. This is sufficient for a single self-explanatory string parameter, though it does not elaborate on ID format or provenance.

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 ('Read') with a clear resource and scope ('one code asset') and enumerates the exact status dimensions covered: lifecycle, deployment, adoption, and settled revenue. This distinguishes it from plural listing tools like list_code_assets and from mutating siblings like deploy_code_asset or adopt_code_asset.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a single code asset identifier and need its status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the singular scope and read-only framing provide adequate context for an agent to select it.

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