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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does state 'Reads only', which is the key behavioral trait. It also discloses paging behavior and a genuinely non-obvious semantic: `estimated_bytes` is predicted while `optimized_bytes` is measured. It omits auth/prerequisites and whether pagination returns totals.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition, then value semantics, then filtering, then the read-only guarantee. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts come first.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize returns, and it does: asset kinds, sizes, findings, state, plus the two byte fields. For an 8-parameter list tool it is nearly sufficient; only the response envelope (items array, pagination totals) and the `search` parameter are unaccounted for.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does by naming the four filter dimensions (kind, status, finding, page) and stating the result set is paged, which covers limit/offset implicitly. It leaves `search` and the scan_id linkage unmentioned beyond the phrase 'of a scan', so compensation is good but not complete.

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 first sentence names a specific resource and scope: an asset inventory for a single scan, enumerating images, CSS, JS and fonts along with sizes, findings and state. That clearly separates it from get_website_scan (scan metadata) and get_website_report (aggregate report), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated: paging and 'filter by kind, status, finding or page' suggest per-asset drill-down after a scan, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the detail view beneath a scan summary.

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