gorelo_list_custom_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real behavioral context by disclosing cursor pagination and the default sort order (createdOn descending, newest first), which an agent needs to reason about paging through results. It stops short of describing what a returned item contains or whether the cursor is stable across filters.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; scope and pagination come first, and the sort order follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With eight optional filters, no output schema, and readOnlyHint carrying safety, the description covers the essentials: scope, paging model, and default ordering. The notable remaining gap is that, absent an output schema, it says nothing about the shape of a returned asset, so an agent cannot anticipate fields without a follow-up call.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description adds no filter semantics beyond the schema (it mentions cursor pagination, which the cursor param already explains). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists custom (non-agent) assets") plus the scope "for the service provider," and the parenthetical "non-agent" implicitly separates it from gorelo_list_assets. No sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary, keeping it below a 5.

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 only implied: the "non-agent" qualifier suggests when to pick this over the general asset list, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (gorelo_list_assets, gorelo_get_custom_asset). Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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