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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: archived assets are still retrievable and are marked by archived_at, and monetary fields are bare numbers with no currency attached — a data-interpretation caveat an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 sentences, both front-loaded and information-dense: the archive/archived_at behavior leads, and the currency warning follows with the exact tool to call. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 usefully pre-announces two return-shape details (archived_at on archived records, bare numeric amounts). It does not say whether the response embeds related entities or nested detail, which is the remaining minor gap for a 'detailed information' getter.

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 100% for the single 'id' parameter, which the schema already documents as the asset ID with a UUID format and pattern. The description's 'by its ID' adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific asset') and pins the retrieval key ('by its ID'), which cleanly separates it from the many list_* siblings such as list_assets. It never names an adjacent single-entity sibling (e.g. get_infrastructure_asset), so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It supplies concrete routing guidance for a downstream need: call get_organization_settings to obtain currency_code before stating any monetary amount. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over list_assets or bulk retrieval, so the 'when not to use' half is absent.

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