Look up a marked file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations — that calls don't count toward the quota — though it says nothing about what happens when the asset_id is unknown.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the retrieval action and its provenance constraint are front-loaded, and the quota note is a compact second sentence.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition gives the agent everything needed to act. The only gap is behavior on a missing or invalid asset_id, which would be helpful but is not essential.

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 schema already describes asset_id as coming from mark_file, so the description's mention of the same origin adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries full parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('fetches the record for a file this account marked') and scopes it to a single asset. It ties the input to the mark_file sibling, though it does not explicitly contrast with verify_file.

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?

It states the prerequisite context clearly: call this with the asset_id that mark_file returned. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of verify_file as an alternative, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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