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

Annotations already mark this as a safe, idempotent read, but the description adds useful behavior: items are newest first, each has type/name/assetId, assetId may be null for undownloadable kinds, and assetIds can be used in jobs/chats or downloaded via url. It does not mention pagination behavior or authentication needs beyond what the schema provides.

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 front-loads the core listing action and asset categories, then adds return-item and usage details without filler. Every sentence contributes useful information, with the final endpoint note being brief.

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?

With annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description supplies substantial return-value context despite the absence of an output schema. It is nearly complete, though it omits pagination guidance and explicit sibling routing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds some meaning by enumerating asset types and origin categories, but it does not explain email, limit, or cursor behavior, so it remains at the baseline level.

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?

State a specific verb and resource: 'List the Muse Library of an account,' and enumerates the asset kinds included. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as muse_list_files or muse_search_files.

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 explains what is listed but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not say whether to prefer this over muse_list_files, muse_search_files, or muse_get_asset, nor does it note pagination context beyond the schema.

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