get_fixed_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does supply the key safety fact ('Read-only'). Beyond that it says nothing about authentication, pagination, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the ID does not exist), so the disclosure is minimal.

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 tight sentence with the primary intent front-loaded, followed by a short safety tag. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and even flags the returned depreciation settings. It only lacks detail on failure modes when the ID is not found.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100% ('Fixed asset ID'), so the schema already does the work. The description's 'by ID' is consistent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (Get), resource (fixed asset), and scope (a single one, by ID), plus the notable content it returns (depreciation settings). An agent can immediately distinguish it from the sibling search_fixed_assets.

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 'a single fixed asset by ID' implies this is the follow-up to a search result, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus search_fixed_assets or when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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