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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by warning that string fields (ID, Name, Ticker) are base64-encoded in the raw response, which is not inferable from annotations or schema. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences deliver all essential information: the first covers purpose and scope, the second highlights the base64 encoding caveat. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, making it ideal.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the return contents (supply info, permissions, roles, precision, metadata) and the encoding caveat. Combined with thorough annotations and schema, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what will be returned and how to interpret it.

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 input schema already documents both parameters comprehensively (assetId with examples, network with enum values and default), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, 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 clearly states the tool gets complete properties and configuration for assets on the Klever blockchain, specifying asset types (KLV, KFI, KDA tokens, NFT collections). This verb-resource-scope combination distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_account or get_balance.

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 clear context on what the tool does and the types of assets it covers, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the name and description make its use case self-evident, the lack of exclusions is acceptable.

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