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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds useful extra behavioral context by noting that the tool is 'Free and unlimited,' which communicates cost and rate-limit characteristics beyond the annotations.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action, the returned financial fields, the valuation date, and the filter dimensions. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list with 100% parameter schema coverage dunes, the description is nearly complete: it states output fields, supported filters, date sensitivity, and cost/limits. It does not explicitly mention pagination defaults, but those are documented in the limit parameter, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds a high-level summary of filter dimensions and output fields, but no meaning beyond what the schema properties already state, matching the baseline.

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 exact purpose: listing fixed-asset register rows with cost, method, rate, and net book value at a given date, with several named filters. This distinguishes it from the mutation siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with asset_report or asset_schedule, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need a filtered list of fixed-asset register values at a date. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, nor any mention of when asset_report or asset_schedule would be a better fit.

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