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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, so the closing 'Read-only' repeats rather than adds. The genuinely useful addition is the return composition — asset_list fields plus notes, invoice line, and source draft — which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about behavior for missing/invalid ids or permission requirements.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most distinguishing detail (extra fields) comes first. The trailing 'Read-only.' is redundant with the annotation, so one small piece of text fails to earn its place, but overall it is efficient.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape reasonably well by naming the extra sub-objects. However, it omits the meaning of asset_id and error/empty behavior, which are the remaining gaps an agent would care about.

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 0% for the single required asset_id parameter. The description only implies ID-based lookup via 'one register entry' and never names the identifier, states what kind of asset ID it is, or explains failure behavior. With full coverage missing, the description should compensate but does not.

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 (get) and a specific scope: 'one register entry in full.' It goes further by distinguishing the payload from a sibling, saying it returns 'every field of asset_list plus notes, the invoice line... and the draft.' It stops short of stating what 'asset' means (the title supplies 'media assets'), but the retrieval contract is unambiguous.

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 when to use it by listing the extra fields, suggesting this is the detailed single-record counterpart to asset_list. But it never says 'use this when you need notes/invoice/draft' or 'use asset_list to browse,' and it gives no exclusions or preconditions. That is adequate but leaves the routing to inference.

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