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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it doesn't mention error behavior, return format, or whether the asset must be unarchived. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate: the description is consistent with annotations but adds minimal behavioral value.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the 'by ID' qualifier is the only necessary detail. This is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 single-resource read tool with one parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't clarify whether the asset must be unarchived or whether archived assets are retrievable, but this is a minor edge case given the sibling archive_asset and restore_from_archive tools exist. The output schema presumably documents the return shape, so the description doesn't need to.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds the hint that the ID comes from list_assets, which is a small semantic addition beyond the schema's 'Asset ID (from list_assets)'—actually the schema already includes this hint, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get a single asset by ID' clearly states the verb (get), the resource (asset), and the lookup mechanism (by ID). It distinguishes itself from list_assets (which lists assets) and update_asset/archive_asset (which mutate assets), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings. The title 'Get saved section' is somewhat confusing because it uses 'section' instead of 'asset', but the description resolves this by using the canonical resource name.

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 the usage context: use this when you have an asset ID and need a single asset's details. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like list_assets for fetching multiple assets. The parameter description 'Asset ID (from list_assets)' provides a useful hint about where the ID comes from, which is a form of usage guidance, but there's no explicit exclusion of alternatives.

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