query_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Query' implies a non-mutating look-up, but there is no explicit statement that there are no side effects, no auth requirements, no rate limits, no mention of behavior for missing entries, and no return format or cursor semantics. It gives the minimum needed information but does not go beyond what the schema already says.

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 compact and front-loaded. The main verb is in the first line, each parameter is a bullet list or a line of its own; no filler words, no redundancy with the schema.

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?

The context (output schema: true; annotation: none) and the sibling list are simple. The tool has a clear assetInventory and supplies; no return value because an output schema is present. The description doesn't provide examples or use cases, but the essentials are all present. Since schema is present and the tool is a query, the absence of return value documentation is acceptable.

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% according to the context, so the description needs to compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with accurate, useful meaning: name = substring match, serial_number = exact, model = substring match, calibration_status = status enum values, preview_limit = cap (max 50). It adds concrete format details such as capitalization and the PXIe-6368 example, which are not present in the schema. Yet it could be more structured and exhaustive (e.g., the serial_number exact format).

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 uses a specific action ('Query') and a clear resource ('the asset inventory') with the key data dimensions listed (serial, presence, calibration state). This clearly distinguishes it from several sibling tools that query systems, products, specs, or files.

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 context is clear: checking the asset inventory. The parameter semantics moreover indicate the function of the filters. However, no explicit exclusion or explicit naming of the sibling alternative tool is given.

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