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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: no login required, no download recorded, missing or unavailable slugs return a not-found message, and the Markdown response may contain embedded content. That last point is a genuine caveat an agent would not learn from the schema.

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?

Three short, front-loaded paragraphs: purpose first, then when-to-use plus the sibling alternative, then a concrete example. Slight redundancy between the title, the opening verb phrase, and the trailing example, but nothing wasteful enough to obscure the signal.

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 need not be explained, yet the description still flags the Markdown format and embedded-content possibility. With one fully documented parameter, safety annotations, and failure behavior described, an agent has everything needed to call 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 coverage is 100% and the slug description already says 'exact asset slug… not a URL or asset ID'. The description repeats the slug concept and adds a usage example, but contributes no additional semantics 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 ('Get full details of a Spark asset by its slug') and enumerates exactly what is returned: description, metadata, outcome reports, bundled files, and the spark.entire.vc URL. It is clearly separable from the sibling get_asset_content, which it names.

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 scopes usage ('For when a known slug needs inspection before acquisition') and routes the alternative case to get_asset_content for raw content and a receipt. It also states the access precondition — public catalog lookup, no login — so the agent knows no auth setup is needed.

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