get_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool requires a Proof account and that start_login does not enable access, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error cases, or whether unverified assets are excluded beyond the word 'verified'.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose is stated in the first sentence, and access requirements follow in a single additional paragraph. No redundant phrasing.

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 simple single-parameter getter, the description is largely complete. It covers return fields and access constraints, even though no output schema exists. It omits not-found behavior or explicit read-only confirmation, but these are minor for a tool of this scope.

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% because the id parameter has a description ('Asset ID'). The description reinforces that the tool fetches by ID and adds the 'verified' qualifier, but it does not add format or validation details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('single verified asset'), and the identifier ('by ID'). It also lists returned fields (type, value, status, verification timestamps), making it distinct from list_assets and revoke_asset.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (fetching a single asset by ID) and provides access prerequisites (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, restart server), but it does not explicitly compare against list_assets or other asset-related siblings. The guidance is practical but not selection-oriented.

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