get_r_asset_asset_user_shares_id

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It clearly identifies the HTTP method (GET) and describes the operation as retrieval, implying read-only semantics. It does not mention error behavior or authorization requirements, though the output schema covers the return shape.

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 concise sentences: the first states the operation and endpoint, the second explains where to supply each parameter group. No filler or redundant content.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and generic parameter containers, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It tells the agent where to put parameters but not which specific path parameter or query filters are valid, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct request despite the output schema being present.

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 0% and all four parameters are generic objects with no property descriptions, so the description is the only source of parameter semantics. It usefully maps route IDs to path_params, filters/pagination to query, and headers to headers, but it never names the actual path parameter key or supported query filter fields, leaving significant room for inference.

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 and resource ('Retrieve asset user share') and names the exact endpoint with an {id} placeholder, making it clear this fetches a single resource by ID. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list endpoint get_r_asset_asset_user_shares, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives concrete placement guidance: route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and required headers in headers. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the list variant or other asset-related tools; the usage context is only implied by the '/{id}' suffix.

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