get_asset

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real value: it identifies the tool as a read of a single asset, lists what is returned, and surfaces an account/auth prerequisite plus a routing warning that start_login will not unlock it. It stops short of disclosing error behavior for unknown IDs or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences: return contents first, then the access constraint, front-loaded and waste-free. The auth paragraph is slightly long relative to the tool's simplicity but each clause carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it supplies the account prerequisite an agent needs before calling. The only gap is what happens on a missing/unauthorized ID, which is minor for a simple single-resource read.

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?

Only one parameter, with 100% schema description coverage ('Asset ID'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the ID beyond what the schema states – the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single verified asset by ID') and enumerates the returned fields (type, value, status, verification timestamps). The 'single ... by ID' phrasing implicitly separates it from list_assets and revoke_asset, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 gives a strong prerequisite ('needs a Proof account. Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server') and clarifying exclusions ('start_login does NOT open this tool'), but it never says when to reach for get_asset versus list_assets, get_profile_assets, or get_verified_user. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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