asset_register_report

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses many non-obvious behaviors: totals computed over the whole filtered set, not just the returned page; empty matches return success with a message; default status hides archived; pagination via cursor until absent; default 500/max 5000 limit; case-insensitive q; and pure read with §H-TENANT. This is rich behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 dense but every clause earns its place, moving from purpose, to output fields, to totals behavior, filters, pagination, edge case, and read-only guarantee. It is front-loaded with the report identity and scope before diving into details.

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 description covers output fields, filter semantics, pagination, empty-match behavior, and the read-only nature, which is sufficient for a complex report with no output schema. It does not enumerate status values or list whitelisted sort fields, which are minor gaps given the schema has no enums, but the overall context is nearly complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates: it explains filter semantics (status defaults, categoryIds, locationIds, acquisition year range, cost range, responsibleUserId, case-insensitive q over specific fields), columns subset behavior (id/number always kept), sort over a whitelist, and cursor/limit pagination. The only minor gap is the exact sort field whitelist values, but the field list is already enumerated.

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 verb and resource: 'complete, filterable fixed-asset register (H09, US-H09.1)', identifying the exact report code and stating 'one row per asset' with a full enumerated field list. It is easily distinguishable from sibling asset tools like asset_list or asset_search by its report scope and totals footer.

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 clearly establishes when this tool is appropriate: when a filterable register with totals over the whole filtered set is needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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