list_company_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get a list,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior (page/page_size), the effect of the 'archived' parameter, or the response format. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a list operation with filtering options.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the tool's core purpose without unnecessary filler. However, it omits useful parameter and behavioral details, so while it is efficient, it might be considered under-specified. The conciseness itself is not flawed, but the trade-off is lost context.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and behavioral nuances. It does not mention pagination (page/page_size), the archived filter behavior, or what fields are returned. For a tool with four parameters and a filtered list use case, this one-sentence description is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly without guessing.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already shows. It does not explain the meaning of 'page,' 'page_size,' or 'archived,' nor does it clarify whether 'archived' defaults to false or returns both archived and non-archived assets. The sole value is the hint that 'company_id' links to the company, which is already evident from the parameter name and the description's 'specific to a Company.'

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a list of Assets specific to a Company.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'Assets' with the 'specific to a Company' qualifier distinguish it from sibling tools like list_assets (all assets) and get_asset (single asset). The name and description together unambiguously identify the purpose.

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 implies usage context (when you need assets for a specific company) but does not explicitly specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_assets or get_asset. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so the guidance is only implicit through the required company_id parameter and the tool name.

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