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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile; 'check' implies a read, but it never states read-only/non-mutating behavior, permissions, or error behavior. It does disclose the return semantic (per-asset approved/rejected status), which is the main behavioral value added.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the workflow rationale second. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the shape of the result (approval status per asset). It could say slightly more about the returned status values or ordering, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 editId and workspaceId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about their format, required-ness, or relationship beyond 'associated with an edit' — 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 (check), resource (asset approval status), and scope (all assets associated with an edit). This scope wording separates it from single-asset siblings like get_asset and from generic list_assets, which does not surface approval state.

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?

Explicitly names the decision context: use it to determine whether the user approved/rejected each asset before proceeding to scene and shot creation. That is a clear when-to-use signal, though it names no alternative (e.g. get_asset for a single asset) and states no exclusions.

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