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 covered externally. The description adds that the result includes the 'current authorization state', which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain what that state contains or what happens for missing or unauthorized assets.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The key differentiating facts—'one workspace asset' and 'current authorization state'—are front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 read-only tool with two required parameters and a rich safety annotation set, the description covers the core purpose and return focus. The main gap is the absence of an output schema and lack of detail about the authorization-state payload, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema describes workspaceSlug but leaves assetId undocumented, and the description does not compensate by explaining either parameter. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning for assetId, but it only refers vaguely to 'one workspace asset'.

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 action ('Return'), a specific resource ('one workspace asset'), and a distinguishing detail ('its current authorization state'). It clearly contrasts with list_assets, which returns multiple assets, and with get_workspace, which targets workspace metadata.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single asset by ID within a workspace, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_assets or get_workspace, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The agent must infer usage from the singular wording and sibling tool names.

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