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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is not a pure read and is not idempotent. The description usefully clarifies that preview avoids provider spend, but it does not explain whether preview persists state or what side effects the non-read-only annotation implies.

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?

Two short sentences with the core constraint front-loaded. The documentation URL adds little for an agent already given the tool, but the wording itself is efficient.

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 preview tool, the description covers the main cost-avoidance behavior. It falls short on explaining projectId, what a preview produces, and how the non-read-only annotation squares with 'preview,' leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 one required parameter, projectId, has no schema description and the tool description does not explain its meaning or expected format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Preview the highest-priority asset brief') and adds the key qualifier 'without starting provider spend.' It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_recommended_asset by framing preview as a no-spend option, though it never names that sibling.

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 phrase 'without starting provider spend' implies when to choose preview over a spend-incurring creation path, but no explicit alternative is named and there are no stated exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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