List assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'provider scopes, locks and credits apply', which does flag auth/cost considerations beyond the structured fields, but it is boilerplate-level and gives no specifics on pagination or credit consumption.

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?

Three short clauses with the endpoint front-loaded and no filler sentences. It is efficient, though its brevity flirts with under-specification rather than richly concise.

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 should help describe the returned collection or pagination, but it does not. Combined with the missing 'page' semantics and no usage context for a two-parameter listing tool, the definition is thin relative to what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only 50%; 'page' has no schema description and the prose adds nothing about it, so pagination behavior is undocumented anywhere. The description explicitly compensates for nothing here, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 gives the resource and HTTP verb ('GET /v5/assets') plus a generic 'Read operation' label, which confirms list/read semantics for assets. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like list_images, get_asset, check_assets, or upload_asset, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. It never tells the agent when to prefer this over get_asset (single asset) or check_assets, nor any prerequisites for calling it, so selection among the sibling asset tools is left entirely to inference.

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