User library

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that owned assets can be re-downloaded at no cost, which explains why a user would list them. It says nothing about pagination behavior or how results are ordered, so it is only a modest addition.

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?

A single short fragment with zero waste and the key scope fact front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than verbose, so conciseness is adequate but not exemplary.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate pagination existence and roughly what is returned. Neither is covered, and with only readOnlyHint available the agent lacks the full picture.

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 never mentions page or per_page, so neither the schema nor the description explains these two pagination parameters. They are optional with defaults, which limits the harm, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap as required.

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 names the resource and its scope precisely: assets the user owns. It implicitly distinguishes this from search_assets (catalog-wide) and get_asset (single asset), though it never names a sibling explicitly. A clear purpose, short of the 5-level standard that calls out differentiation.

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 parenthetical '(re-download for free)' hints at the re-download use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternatives named. An agent must infer whether to call this or search_assets to locate an asset.

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