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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds contextual scope about legacy v1 compatibility and safety gates, but does not describe return shape, potential staleness, or any runtime behavior beyond the annotation-backed read-only nature.

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 sentences, with the core read purpose front-loaded and the sibling routing instruction in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 parameterless, read-only status tool with annotations covering safety and an explicit alternative given, the description is complete. An agent can invoke it correctly without needing additional context about inputs.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. The empty schema provides full coverage, and the description appropriately omits parameter details that would be meaningless here.

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 'Read legacy v1 compatibility status and original-corridor safety gates,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from assetfare_v2_capabilities by explicitly stating that the primary source quote/execution surface belongs to 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?

It clearly states when to use this tool: to read compatibility status and safety gates. It also names the alternative, assetfare_v2_capabilities, and its broader purpose, giving an agent explicit routing guidance.

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