get_r_asset_asset_user_shares

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 only reveals that this is a GET/retrieve operation; it does not mention authentication needs, pagination behavior, error cases, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by concise parameter-placement guidance. It contains no filler, though the endpoint mention partly duplicates 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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations and fully generic parameters, the description leaves out important context: how this differs from the `_id` sibling, whether inputs are required, what the body is for, and what specific filters/pagination are supported. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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?

The schema is entirely generic (open objects with 0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does add some meaning by mapping `path_params` to route IDs, `query` to filters/pagination, and `headers` to request headers. However, it is vague and does not name concrete filters or explain the `body` parameter at all.

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 user shares' along with the exact endpoint `GET /r/asset/asset_user_shares`. It is not a tautology and identifies the operation's scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this collection endpoint from the sibling `get_r_asset_asset_user_shares_id`, which is a meaningful gap.

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 placement instructions ('route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query') but never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_r_asset_asset_user_shares_id` or `get_r_asset_asset_shares`. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided, leaving usage context to inference.

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