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

With all annotations false, the description carries the transparency burden and does a good job: it discloses the return payload (id, rate, useful life, convention), the minor-units rule for monetary fields, and the ten-asset free-tier limit. It does not discuss failure or reversibility, but the essential side effects and return behavior are clear.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return behavior. The minor-units warning and free-tier limit are genuinely useful constraints, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Because there is no output schema and no helpful annotations, the description usefully covers the return shape, the derived tax values, the minor-units convention, and the capacity limit. It is nearly complete for a create tool, though it leaves failure-mode and alternative-tool guidance unstated.

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 93%, so the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. The description only restates the minor-units convention for cost and residual, which the schema already states, and adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond that.

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 'Add one fixed asset to the register', naming the exact action, object, and destination, and additionally states what it returns. This clearly distinguishes it from lifecycle siblings like asset_dispose, asset_delete, and asset_schedule.

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 creation context is unmistakable from the verb 'Add' and the register target, and the free-tier cap gives useful capacity context. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so it relies on the agent inferring usage from the title and sibling names.

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