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

Annotations already communicate that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those facts. It adds useful context about slug provenance and provider types, though it does not describe error behavior or output details beyond the inline image.

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 deliver the core purpose immediately and then pin down the slug/source semantics. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only preview tool with rich annotations, the description covers what it does, its output form, and its input provenance. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters, including source enum values and defaults. The description reinforces that slug comes from assets_search, but adds no major semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('see'), a concrete resource ('asset's thumbnail as an inline image'), and the associated workflow phase ('before importing it'). This clearly distinguishes asset_preview from import tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a pre-import preview step, giving clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly list alternative tools, but the 'before importing' wording makes the intended usage evident.

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