get_r_asset_asset_storages_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method (GET) and parameter placement, but doesn't disclose what the response contains, whether the resource can be null/404, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a read operation the lack of side-effect disclosure is less critical, but the absence of any response or error behavior context leaves a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and endpoint, then packs parameter guidance efficiently. Every clause earns its place. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating parameter guidance into a second sentence), but it is compact and readable.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, return values are covered elsewhere, but the description still lacks critical context: what 'asset storage' represents, what filters/pagination parameters are valid, what headers might be required, and how errors manifest. The sibling list is enormous and mostly follows the same naming pattern, so an agent could infer some context, but the description alone is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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. It does explain the roles of path_params, query, and headers at a high level, but the schema's properties are generic objects with no property-level documentation. The description doesn't specify what the path_params should contain beyond 'route IDs', what filters are available, or what headers might be required. This is better than nothing but insufficient for an agent to construct correct parameters without external knowledge.

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 specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('asset storage') and explicitly names the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes itself from the collection endpoint get_r_asset_asset_storages by the {id} suffix, though it doesn't name that sibling directly. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to know it fetches a single asset storage record.

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 practical guidance on where to place parameters ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers'). This implies when to use the tool (when you have an ID and want a single resource), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the list endpoint. The guidance is useful but not fully explicit about selection criteria.

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