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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by revealing the return format (AST-YYYY-NNNN id) and the free-tier quota/metering behavior. It does not mention error conditions or side effects, but the schema covers tag uniqueness, so the disclosure is reasonably rich for a creation tool.

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 sentences with zero waste. The primary action and key fields are front-loaded, followed by return and quota details. Every sentence earns its place without 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 simple creation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, the fields, the return format, and the quota constraints. Error handling for duplicate tags is already in the schema, and no other critical operational details are missing. The agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the main fields ('its name, its serial or asset tag, where it lives, and the currency') but does not add meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions. The return ID is not a parameter, so no extra semantic value for parameters is provided.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('equipment to the maintenance register'), lists the key fields (name, tag, location, currency), and mentions the return ID. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like asset_remove (removal) and asset_history (history) by action.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool, such as for updating existing assets or handling licenses, leaving the agent to infer based on the action.

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