get_fixed_assets

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the output composition and that results are grouped 'per asset ledger,' which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior, date filtering effects, permissions, or empty-result handling. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and then adds a focused parenthetical list of return components. There is no fluff or redundancy; every phrase contributes meaningful information.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return components and grouping adequately. It omits return format details and edge cases, but the schema handles filtering and pagination defaults, making the overall package reasonably complete.

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 documents limit, ledger_id, and as_on_date, giving 75% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, and company_id is self-evident from context. This meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a concrete resource ('fixed asset register & depreciation summary'), then enumerates the exact components returned (opening balance, additions, disposals, depreciation, closing balance). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool get_fixed_asset_transactions, which is about individual transaction records rather than the register summary.

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 when to use the tool: whenever a fixed asset register or depreciation summary is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with get_fixed_asset_transactions or state when the transaction-level tool should be preferred, leaving routing largely to inference.

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