Get Fixed Assets

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds modest behavioral context by listing return fields and the status filter, but does not disclose ordering, whether disposed records are included by default (the schema covers the default), or any volume/pagination traits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage trigger, and filter capability. The most identifying information is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of annotation data.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what fields come back, when to use it, and how to filter. With no output schema, it compensates by naming the returned fields. Minor omissions like result ordering or pagination are low-stakes for an asset-register list.

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 fully documents the status parameter including its enum values and default. The description's 'Filter by active, disposed, or all' merely restates the schema, adding no new meaning. The baseline 3 applies because the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List fixed assets on the register') and enumerates the exact fields returned (cost, net book value, monthly depreciation, status). This is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from the broader accounting siblings like get_balance_sheet or get_expenses without opening the schema.

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?

'Use when the user asks about their asset register, depreciation schedules, NBV, or capital items tracked per asset' gives explicit triggering conditions. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_capital_allowance_hint for tax-side depreciation), leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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