get_asset_by_compound_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the compound-key mechanism, the API endpoint, and the comprehensive return content (dimensions, measures, relationships, technical/business context). This is robust disclosure for a read-only retrieval operation, exceeding the typical vague 'retrieves data'.

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 longer than typical but well-structured with headings and bullet lists, and front-loaded with a concise summary sentence. Every section serves a clear purpose, though some repetition exists (e.g., 'same metadata as get_asset_details' appears twice in different forms).

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers use cases, parameters with examples, behavior, endpoint, and comparison with sibling tools, leaving little ambiguity for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning: it explains how space_id and asset_id combine into the OData compound key, provides a concrete format example, and includes example queries. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the schema's simple field types.

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?

Clearly states 'Retrieve asset using OData compound key identifier' with a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes it as an 'alternative access method' relative to get_asset_details. The title 'null' is compensated by a dense first sentence that precisely defines the tool's unique function.

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?

Provides explicit bulleted 'Use this tool when' criteria and a dedicated 'When to use this vs get_asset_details' section, listing both scenarios and alternatives. This goes far beyond implied usage, giving the agent clear decision rules.

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