list_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing pagination and partial name filtering behavior. No contradictions. Could mention return format but not required.

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 clear sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, and pagination. It is sufficiently complete given the schema and annotations. Slight gap on return structure, but overall solid.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions partial name filtering, which adds context to the 'name' parameter, but otherwise does not elaborate on other parameters. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 clearly states to use this tool for browsing cloud assets, subscriptions, or resources. It specifies the verb 'browse' and the resource 'assets'. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly listing what not to use (cost analysis, invoices).

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 provides when-to-use (browsing assets) and when-not-to-use (cost analysis -> run_query, invoices -> list_invoices). This gives clear context and alternatives, satisfying the dimension fully.

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