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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds some behavioral context by specifying that the revision is 'owned' and that it returns review state and hashes, but it does not go further into error handling, permission requirements, or return format. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds two key details in a compact way. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and coverage from annotations, the description provides sufficient detail: it states what is retrieved, the ownership scope, and the specific data points included (review state, hashes). It could mention not-found behavior or the relationship to list_content_assets, but these are minor omissions for such a simple 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 description coverage is 100% (the asset_id parameter is documented as 'Full UUID from the matching list tool'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond implying asset_id refers to a revision. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema is fully descriptive.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one owned content revision'), and adds meaningful detail ('including its review state and exact content hashes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_content_assets or create_content_asset_revision, so an agent immediately understands what this tool retrieves.

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 gives clear context: it fetches one owned content revision by ID, which implies use when you need a single revision's review state and hashes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the qualifier 'owned' and the singular 'one' set expectations well. No exclusions are stated, which fits a straightforward getter tool.

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