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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the scope of 'full details for one workspace asset' and is consistent with annotations, but it does not disclose behavior around invalid asset IDs, permissions, or the exact response shape.

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 with no filler. Every element—returns, full details, one, workspace asset—carries meaning and directly supports an agent's understanding.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with strong annotations and a complete parameter schema, this description is sufficient. 'Full details' signals the return value appropriately even without an output schema, and there are no hidden side effects or alternative paths to clarify.

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%: asset_id is described as 'Workspace Asset ID.' The description itself adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description 'Returns full details for one workspace asset' states a specific verb ('Returns'), a resource ('workspace asset'), and a scoping specificity ('one'). It is clearly distinguished from siblings such as invoke_list_workspace_assets (list vs. single) and invoke_get_post (asset vs. post).

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 conveys clear usage context: call this when you need the full details of a specific workspace asset rather than a list. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as invoke_list_workspace_assets, but the single-vs-many framing makes the intended use clear.

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