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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the call counts as a download/acquisition event and that authentication is required for paid assets, which is meaningful non-obvious behavior beyond simply 'getting content'.

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 description is compact and well-structured: a clear purpose statement in the first sentence, followed by essential caveats in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key operational details: purpose, acquisition-event semantics, and authentication requirements. It is complete enough to call correctly, though explicit sibling differentiation would make it fully robust.

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 slug parameter is fully documented in the input schema as 'Asset slug'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('raw content of a Spark asset') with concrete examples (prompt text, skill instructions, agent config). This clearly differentiates it from sibling get_asset by focusing on raw content rather than asset 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 provides useful context—this counts as a download/acquisition event and paid assets require authentication—but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over get_asset or other siblings. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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