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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying related records such as users, teams, vendors, parts, files, and sub-assets are optional inclusions, though it does not mention not-found behavior or permission requirements.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence followed by the endpoint. It is appropriately sized for a get-by-id tool and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 usefully summarizes what the response contains: purchase and warranty details, custom fields, and optional related records. It is largely complete for this read operation, though minor operational details such as not-found handling are not covered.

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%, so both asset_id and includes are already documented in the schema. The description mentions optional related records but does not expand on the full allowed includes list or add meaning beyond the schema's own explanation.

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 it returns one asset by id and enumerates the included details, with the endpoint GET /assets/{id} making the retrieve operation explicit. The singular-by-id scope distinguishes it from sibling list_assets, so an agent can tell what resource and cardinality to expect.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool is used when an asset id is already known, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus upkeep_list_assets or how to find an id first, so usage guidance is mostly 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.