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

The description discloses that each asset gets a longitudinal condition history with AI scoring and degradation trajectory, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, aligning with a creation operation. The description provides useful outcome details but does not cover authorization or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no wasted words. The description is efficient and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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 registration tool with no output schema, the description explains the outcome (condition history, AI scoring) but lacks details on error handling, idempotency (annotations say idempotentHint=false), prerequisites, or what happens if the asset already exists. The missing parameter documentation for two fields also reduces completeness.

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 67% (four of six parameters have descriptions). The main description does not explain individual parameters beyond the schema, and it fails to compensate for the two missing parameter descriptions (project_id, location_description). The description adds general context but not parameter-specific semantics.

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 clearly states the verb 'Register' and the resource 'physical asset in the condition ledger' with examples (equipment, structure, vehicle, machine). This differentiates it from sibling registration tools like tascan_register_agent or tascan_register_tag by specifying the asset focus.

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 implies usage before assessment tools ('so it can be assessed over time'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No direct comparison with siblings or exclusion criteria is provided.

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