list_assets

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds real behavioral context: it is 'Free', and each entry carries business outcome, price tier, data requirement, and same-day-generatability. This tells the agent what it gets back and that no cost is incurred, going beyond the safety profile annotations provide.

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 core action and scope in the first clause, then supplemental detail on entry contents and the follow-up call. The pricing enumeration (Tool $3, Framework $12, Decision $49) is slightly dense but earns its place by signaling tiering. No wasted sentences.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating what each entry contains. Combined with the routing to generate_asset and the free/cost signal, this is nearly complete; only pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 group, limit, query, and available_only. The description adds no syntax or format detail for these parameters beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Andru's catalog of sales, hiring, fundraising and buying assets') with concrete scope ('139 deliverables'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling generate_asset by routing the agent there as the next step, so an agent knows this is the discovery step rather than the generation step.

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?

Gives clear usage context: search the catalog, then 'call generate_asset with the asset's name.' This establishes the intended workflow. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and never mentions get_asset (the likely sibling for retrieving a single asset), so alternatives are only partially disambiguated.

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