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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds something the annotations do not: the shape of what comes back, including the cross-reference to posts that use the asset, which helps an agent judge whether this call answers its question.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the payload description front-loaded and the routing hint second. Every clause earns its place.

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 getter with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers identity, scope, and payload without needing to restate return values. Only the absence of explicit when-to-use guidance keeps it short of complete.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Asset id from search_assets'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, sourcing, or error guidance beyond what is there, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Opens') and resource ('one asset'), and enumerates the payload (preview URL, details, which posts use it). The singular 'one asset' contrasts cleanly with the sibling search_assets, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 'Related:' line lists search_assets, update_asset, and delete_assets, which implies the read-one-by-id use case, but it never states when to choose this over search_assets or what the prerequisites are. Usage is inferred rather than instructed.

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