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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses conditional return content (gait/arm block only when has_ik is true), the paid-asset response shape (PLAN + pricing link), and a hard pricing policy that prevents a costly agent error. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, but covers far more than a typical read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary return contents, then conditional blocks, then the pricing caveat — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly run-on, and the trailing "Probe #415" is unexplained noise that does not earn 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does so thoroughly including the conditional IK block and the paid-asset edge case. It is nearly complete for a read tool; only auth/permission expectations and failure modes are unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including the format example (windmill-3aad49). The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Full detail for one asset") and enumerates what detail means: size, triangle count, palette, animatable parts, renders, download URLs. This clearly separates it from search_assets or list_kits, but it never names a sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is by inference rather than by statement.

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?

Usage is implied (fetch full detail for a single asset once you have its id) and there is operational guidance for the paid-asset case ("quote the PLAN... never quote one"). However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative routing against siblings like get_variant or preview_scene.

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