Get assets notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description only restates 'Read-only' rather than adding to it. It does add genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: one server call per asset, no tokens spent on assets without notes, and a partial-failure model with a failed array. That partial-failure and per-asset cost behavior is useful, but the 'Read-only' restatement and the return-value detail (already covered by the output schema) dilute it.

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?

The opening sentence is well front-loaded and the Args section is lean. However, the Returns paragraph spells out field-level output (checked, annotated, last_verdict, last_reason, last_review_at, failed, success) even though a full output schema exists, which is redundant bulk.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, the batch-check use case, per-asset call cost, and partial-failure semantics. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing, aside from any note on very large asset_ids lists.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single required parameter, and it does: asset_ids is 'the candidates to check' with concrete examples (an album's assets, a search result). It stops short of stating format constraints such as ID prefixes or list-size limits, but the meaning is clear.

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 states a specific verb and resource in batch form: check which of a given set of assets already carry notes and return their last verdict. The framing 'the call that lets a cleanup pass skip what an earlier session reviewed' pins down the exact purpose. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_asset_notes (single-asset variant) or clear_asset_notes, so it stops short of 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?

It gives a clear usage scenario — a cleanup pass that should skip assets already reviewed in an earlier session — and tells the caller where the candidate list comes from ('an album's assets, a search result'). No explicit when-not or named alternative, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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