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

The description explicitly claims 'Reads only,' while the annotations set readOnlyHint: false, which contradicts the description. Per the scoring rule, a direct contradiction with annotations must receive a score of 1. Without this conflict, the detailed output listing would have been strong.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core action and then efficiently lists all output components. There is no filler, and each clause contributes useful information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the accepted inputs and the full set of returned information. Minor omissions like pagination or error behavior are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already fully describes the single 'asset' parameter, including accepted identifier types and the uniqueness condition. The description echoes this rather than adding new semantic meaning, so the high schema coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Read'), the resource scope ('one asset in full'), and the accepted identifiers ('by id, tag or name'). It also enumerates the exact returned data, distinguishing it from the sibling asset_add/asset_remove and maintenance_* tools.

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 read-only use for fetching one asset's complete history and financial summary, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. There is clear context, but no explicit routing versus siblings like maintenance_log or license_status.

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