api_indexer_lookup_asset_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a lookup by exact ID only, what format the response takes, whether it's paginated (despite the itemsPerPage parameter), or any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, which is efficient. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's context among many similar siblings and the lack of annotations - more information would be helpful but isn't provided.

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, no output schema, and operating in a crowded namespace of similar asset tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what differentiates this from other asset lookup tools, what format the response takes, or provide any context about the 'configuration' aspect mentioned. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without trial and error.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'asset information and configuration' includes, how the network parameter affects results, or clarify the relationship between assetId lookup and pagination.

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 'Get asset information and configuration' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('asset information and configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'api_algod_get_asset_by_id' or 'api_indexer_search_for_assets' - all appear to retrieve asset data, so differentiation is lacking.

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 is provided about when to use this specific tool versus the many other asset-related tools in the sibling list. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or specific use cases that would help an agent choose this tool appropriately among similar options.

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