Bulk export assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states 'READ-ONLY' and 'High latency on large deployments', and explains the `search` parameter is a single-term substring, plus why structured filters are omitted. This is solid transparency, though it does not detail pagination or response size limits, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, search clarification, filter rationale, and a final read-only/latency warning. The description is front-loaded with purpose and reads cleanly without redundancy.

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?

The tool has a moderate parameter count and an output schema, so the description needn't detail return values. It covers when to use, what it returns, latency, read-only nature, and a key parameter clarification. It falls just short of perfect by not mentioning pagination or how `start_at` interacts with large exports, but for an agent selecting a tool it is highly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for `search` by describing it as a substring, and clarifies why structured filters are absent. However, `limit`, `sort_by`, `start_at`, and `descending` are left to be inferred from their names, which is acceptable but not fully compensatory at this coverage level.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Bulk asset export') and clearly states the return value ('full asset records') and use cases (offline analysis, inventory reconciliation, feeding another system). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `query_assets` by positioning itself for bulk/offline needs, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool vs `query_assets` ('PREFER query_assets for interactive questions... Use this tool when you genuinely need whole records in bulk'). It also states what is not exposed (structured filters) and why, providing clear guidance on limitations.

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