reels_get_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description does add genuine value by disclosing what the response contains (source provenance and converted variants), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about behavior on a missing or malformed assetId, or about the size/shape of the variant list.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the returned payload is appended as a qualifier. Nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 one-parameter read with a closed-world, non-destructive annotation profile, the description is close to sufficient, and with no output schema it at least characterizes the returned record. It stops short of covering failure modes (asset not found, invalid id) or whether variants are references or inlined, which an agent assembling a workflow would want.

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 would need to compensate, and it contributes nothing about assetId — not even that it is the canonical slug. However, the single parameter's pattern constraint (^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9_-]{0,63}$) is fully expressed in the schema, and one self-evident identifier leaves little ambiguity.

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?

Specific verb ("Read") plus specific resource ("one canonical asset record"), and it names the payload contents (source provenance, converted variants). It does not name the sibling it is not (e.g. reels_resolve_asset, reels_preview_asset), so an agent must infer the single-record-by-id scope rather than being told explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: "one" plus a single required assetId signals retrieval by identifier, which implicitly contrasts with reels_list and reels_search_assets. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of when to prefer reels_resolve_asset, reels_preview_asset, or reels_download_asset instead.

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