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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minor context by indicating the asset is from 'your wallet storage' (ownership scope) and repeats 'FREE', which may refer to cost. However, it does not disclose return format, prerequisites like wallet registration, or failure behavior.

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, short sentence that gets to the point quickly. The only minor issue is the redundant 'FREE. (FREE)' repetition, which adds noise but does not significantly impact clarity.

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 getter with only two parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is adequate but lacks mention of return format or error behavior. Since there is no output schema and no explicit description of what the caller receives, this is a clear gap.

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 schema already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description only confirms that lookup is 'by key' and storage is in 'wallet storage', adding little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), identifies the resource ('stored asset from your wallet storage'), and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by key'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like save_asset, delete_asset, and get_artwork.

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 tool should be used when you have a wallet address and an asset key to fetch a stored asset, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_assets or get_artwork. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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