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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the specific content returned (attributes, breadcrumb, documents, tags, linked records), the not-found error on unknown GUIDs, and the required Asset.View permission.

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?

Four tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with purpose and then layering returns, error behavior, and permissions. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the returned payload and documents the failure mode and permission requirement. It is nearly complete; only the sourcing of a valid GUID (i.e., routing to search/list) is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and the single guid parameter is fully documented in the schema as an ExternalGuid UUID. The description echoes 'stable public GUID' but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema; 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves an asset's details') and the lookup key ('by its stable public GUID'), which distinguishes it from list/search siblings without naming them. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with uteamup_asset_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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: you need a GUID to call it, and the alternatives (list/search) would be the routing path when you don't have one, but the description never states this. No when/when-not guidance or named alternatives are provided.

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