get_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond 'full details' — no indication of what kind of detail comes back, that results may differ by asset_type, or that the country parameter affects editorial results specifically. For an open-world read whose output varies by asset type, this leaves the agent without behavioral context the annotations cannot supply.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too sparse for the amount of variation the tool supports, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool is a simple single-record read, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description covers the minimum. What is missing is how asset_type interacts with the other parameters (country only for editorial) and any note about a miss/not-found outcome.

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 67%, so the schema carries most of the load, and country is well documented there. The description does add a small mapping value by spelling out the four asset kinds and rendering the 'music' enum as 'track', but it says nothing about the required id or that country applies only to editorial.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of one image, video, track or editorial photo'), and the enumeration of asset types lets an agent distinguish this from the search_* siblings, which return many results. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the single-asset scope explicitly against get_collection, but the intent is unambiguous.

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: 'the full details of one' suggests this is the follow-up call after a search, but the description never says to use it after search_images/search_videos/etc., nor does it exclude any case. The needed context (id comes from a search result) lives in the schema rather than the description.

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