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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful context — no authentication required, no side effects, returns public metadata only — though these largely restate the annotation semantics rather than reveal new traits like rate limits or field-level caveats.

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 lookup key and its provenance are front-loaded, and every sentence is functional. It is slightly dense with parenthetical enumerations, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, yet the description still gives a field preview. Combined with the explicit id provenance and the no-search/when-to-use guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented there, including the same 'not a title and not a keyword' warning. The description repeats that constraint rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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 precise verb+resource+scope: return the full public record of ONE asset looked up by exact id, and enumerates what the record contains (category, industry, tags, tech stack, demo url, price, editable source). This is clearly distinguishable from the search/filter siblings.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite (an id already obtained from search_3d_web_assets or recommend_3d_web_stack), states what the tool does NOT do (no keywords, no search), and routes the agent to search_3d_web_assets to get an id first. This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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