get_r_asset_asset_shares

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint, implying a read operation, but it does not state whether this is a safe read, whether it requires authentication, whether it returns a list or a single object, or any pagination behavior. The description adds only the endpoint call pattern, not meaningful behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, which is good. However, the second sentence is a generic restatement of how to fill the schema parameters and does not add tool-specific value. It is concise but not particularly informative.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description is still incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations. It lacks any explanation of what asset shares are, what filters are available, what route IDs are expected, or how pagination works. An agent would struggle to construct a correct request beyond guessing from the endpoint name.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only names the parameter groups (path_params, query, headers) without explaining what route IDs, filters, or pagination parameters are valid. The schema itself is permissive (additionalProperties: true) and provides no parameter names or formats, so an agent has no concrete guidance on what to pass. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema's property names.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Retrieve asset shares') and names the exact endpoint, which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'asset shares' are or what the returned data represents, and it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling get_r_asset_asset_shares_id or the similar get_r_asset_asset_user_shares. The name and endpoint carry most of the meaning.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says to provide route IDs, filters, pagination, and headers, which is generic invocation mechanics, not usage context. There is no mention of when to prefer this over get_r_asset_asset_shares_id or get_r_asset_asset_user_shares.

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