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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description adds that the payload is a list of movement records of three types, which is real context given there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination behavior at the description level or whether data is scoped to current location, so the addition is modest.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing HTTP path adds little for an agent selecting the tool, but it costs almost nothing.

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 two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and readOnlyHint, the essentials are covered. The notable gap is disambiguation from the crowded stock/asset-history sibling set, which the description never addresses.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema (page with default/next-page guidance, asset_number format). The description's <ASSET#> notation merely echoes the required parameter without adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the stock movements of one inventory item, with the movement kinds enumerated (added, sold, transferred). It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_asset_history, get_asset_stock, or list_asset_stock, leaving the agent to guess which history/stock tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite several overlapping sibling tools (get_asset_history, get_asset_stock, list_asset_stock). The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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