Api asset class retrieve

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response. It does not say which fields get masked or what permission governs that, so the disclosure is only partial credit.

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 clause with no padding, so nothing is wasteful. But it is terse to the point of omission -- the one sentence spends its words on the masking side effect while leaving out the resource and parameter semantics.

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?

No output schema and 0% parameter coverage mean the description carries the full burden of explaining the lookup key and return shape. It only says "a single object" plus the masking note, which is not enough for an agent to call it confidently amid the many sibling retrieve/list tools.

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% for the single required `id` parameter, so the schema provides no meaning and the description must compensate. The description never mentions `id` at all, leaving the agent to guess whether it is the asset class identifier, a slug, or a UUID.

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?

"Return a single object" states a retrieve operation and the masking behavior, but the resource (asset class) is never named in the description -- it is only inferable from the tool name. With siblings like asset_class_list, asset_class_object_retrieve and asset_class_cascade_info_retrieve present, the description does nothing to distinguish which retrieve variant this is.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus asset_class_list or asset_class_object_retrieve, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this fetches one asset class by id.

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