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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return content but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Since the tool name implies a read, the lack of explicit behavioral notes is a minor gap but not misleading.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the contents. Every word earns its place; 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?

Given no output schema, the description enumerates the key fields returned, which is substantial. It also clarifies the input (slug). Missing details like error cases or authentication are minor for a get-by-slug tool, and the sibling set provides enough context to infer typical usage.

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 description only repeats the parameter name ('by slug') without adding meaning beyond the schema, which already provides the pattern and length. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining slug format or purpose, but it 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 clearly states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('asset'), and enumerates the returned details (CDN URL, licence, stats, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_asset_usage and get_pack. It is specific and 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 usage (retrieve full asset details) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_asset_usage or search_assets. There is no exclusion or comparison to siblings, leaving the routing decision to the agent.

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