api_algod_get_asset_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'current' means (e.g., real-time vs. cached). The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by including key details. It earns a 4 for being concise but loses a point for lacking depth.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how errors are handled, or prerequisites for use. For a tool that likely interacts with a blockchain network, more context is needed for effective agent use.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what an 'assetId' represents or how 'itemsPerPage' affects pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('current asset information'), but is vague about what 'current asset information' entails. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'api_indexer_lookup_asset_by_id' or 'api_algod_get_account_asset_info', leaving ambiguity about which tool to use for asset queries.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. With multiple asset-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., api_indexer_lookup_asset_by_id, api_algod_get_account_asset_info), the description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer based on names alone.

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