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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns available market assets with their IDs, types, and prices, and the verb 'list' implies a read-only action. It does not discuss pagination, market scope, or authentication, but for a lightweight listing tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's core purpose and output, then adds a clear workflow instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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, optional-parameter listing tool, the description covers the key workflow, the purpose, and the main returned fields. It does not include an output schema, so a slightly richer statement about the list response could help, but the agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and proceed to asset_id-based calls.

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, api_type, is fully documented in the schema with an enum and a description ('filter by type, empty returns all'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the specific resource (AI assets in the market) and the action (list), and explicitly lists the important returned fields (asset_id, type, unit price). It also clarifies its role in the workflow — 'use it first to find the asset_id to call' — which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_request or ai_estimate.

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 gives an explicit usage cue: use this tool first to obtain the asset_id needed for later calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple discovery step before the sibling request tools.

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