Explain where a QuiJutsu asset came from and how far to trust it

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds substantive semantics beyond them, defining origin values (community = player-proposed with independent reviewers vs imported = seeded by QuiJutsu) and what question_eligible and the certification threshold mean. It does not cover error behavior for a missing asset or pagination, but this is a single-record read so those are minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return payload, then the usage triggers. The middle sentence is long because it enumerates many returned fields, but each field listed is meaningful and nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so completely for a read-only provenance lookup: origin, review status, evidence tier, eligibility, Spirit Level, vote tally, and certification. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything it needs.

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 the schema already documents name partial matching, asset_id disambiguation, and the asset_type enum. The description only restates the name/asset_id disambiguation pattern, adding little the schema doesn't say.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Explain') on a specific resource ('the trust record behind one Community Asset Library entry') and enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with search_assets, which is the sibling an agent might confuse it with on a name lookup.

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?

'Use this when a user asks whether an entry is reliable, who decided its difficulty, or why it is in the library' gives three concrete trigger questions. The name-then-asset_id disambiguation note adds operational guidance, but no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. use search_assets to browse) is given.

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