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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It simply says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-mutating, mention any permissions needed, or describe return behavior. The word 'generates' hints at on-the-fly computation but this is left vague.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose and then lists the specific asset types. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with an enum, the description covers the essential information: what it gets and the valid asset identifiers. It lacks details on return format or use cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete. Would benefit from a note on when to retrieve these assets.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does mention the two valid assetId enum values in prose, and 'from the business's own record' hints at businessId. However, it does not explain the format or purpose of businessId beyond that. The schema already provides the enum, so the added value is moderate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving an asset generated by OEX from a business's own record, and explicitly names the two possible asset types ('local-business-jsonld' or 'corrected-info-block'). This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools that retrieve other entity types.

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 implies usage for these two specific asset types but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be preferable, which is notable given the large set of sibling tools.

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