list_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds two behavioral facts not present in any structured field: the result ordering (most critical first) and that filters are AND-combined. It omits pagination behavior, though the offset parameter description covers that.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the essential scope (what is listed, ordering) is front-loaded before the filter-combination note.

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 an output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100% parameter descriptions, the description only needs to supply purpose, ordering, and filter semantics – all of which it does. The one gap is routing guidance versus get_asset, which is minor given how much the structured data carries.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema carries the per-parameter detail (type, limit, query, offset, status, location, criticality). The description goes beyond the schema by specifying the cross-parameter interaction rule (AND) and that all are optional, which the schema cannot express.

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 and resource ('List assets') plus the result ordering ('most critical first'), so an agent knows exactly what the call returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the singular sibling get_asset, so sibling differentiation is only implied by name.

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?

'All filters are optional and combine with AND' tells the agent how the filters behave and that the call works with no arguments at all, which is useful context. It gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against get_asset or the other list_* siblings, so the usage signal is implied rather than stated.

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