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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds scope (custom assets only) and identifies the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite cursor/page_size being exposed. Adequate, not rich.

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, front-loaded with scope and followed by the endpoint. Nothing redundant and no wasted preamble.

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, no-required-param list tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope sufficiently. The main remaining gap is pagination/return-shape expectations, which the annotation and schema partially absorb.

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 every parameter including query, cursor, page_size, client_ids and updated_since is already documented. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline 3 here.

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 ('List custom (non-agent) assets') and distinguishes itself from the agent-asset listing by the '(non-agent)' qualifier. Concrete examples (printers, switches, licences) sharpen what counts as a custom asset. It doesn't name gorelo_list_agent_assets explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the examples and the '(non-agent)' qualifier; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to the sibling list_agent_assets as the alternative. An agent can infer intent but must reason about it.

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