get_r_asset_asset_unqouted_services_id

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a read-only GET operation and mentions query filtering and pagination, which is useful. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination defaults, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving behavioral transparency only partially addressed.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose, and the second maps the main parameter buckets. It is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a simple generated GET-by-ID endpoint, especially since an output schema exists to cover the return value. However, it lacks concrete filter/pagination key names, auth context, and any note on required path ID format. Given the generic schema and absence of annotations, more detail would be needed for full invocation confidence.

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 add meaning by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to required request headers. However, it stops short of naming specific filter keys, pagination parameters, or header requirements, so compensation is only partial.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Retrieve asset unqouted service' and gives the exact endpoint `GET /r/asset/asset_unqouted_services/{id}`. It is specific enough to identify the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list endpoint `get_r_asset_asset_unqouted_services`, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 mechanical instructions about where to place parameters ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query'), but it does not say when to use this tool versus the sibling list variant or any alternative. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided, so an agent has no guidance on choosing this tool.

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