user_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the semantic difference between 'all' and other options, clarifies that 'eulas' returns items requiring user acceptance via web portal, and gives a return type. This goes beyond basic read-only behavior.

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 description is well-structured with a clear introductory sentence, a bulleted list of options, a note, and a returns section. It is not excessively verbose and all content is relevant. Minor redundancy with the schema's enum list, but it improves clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema and safety annotations, the description sufficiently covers behavior. It explains all options, the special eulas case, and the return type. It does not mention edge cases like pagination or empty results, but these are less critical for a retrieval tool with clear annotations.

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% with descriptions for both user_id and asset_type. The description adds extra meaning by listing and explaining each enum value (assets, accessories, licenses, consumables, eulas, all) and the note about eulas, which goes beyond the schema's terse 'Type of items to retrieve'. This enrichment compensates for the minimal schema descriptions.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get items checked out to a user.' It enumerates the types of items (assets, accessories, licenses, consumables, eulas) and explicitly differentiates from sibling management tools by focusing on retrieval. The 'Note' about eulas further clarifies the scope.

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?

The description implicitly guides usage by explaining the available asset_type options and the purpose of each (e.g., 'eulas' for pending acceptances). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_assets or asset_operations. Clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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