vapi_market_asset_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses one logical GET request, no auto-fetching of continuation pages, local limits of 100 rows and 256 KiB, truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, and the policy-based nature of required inputs. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure beyond minimal expectations.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description then becomes a rambling list of technical caveats and sample observations ('All 13 landing-page categories were captured', 'SKINS returned 788 records') that are not clearly tied to agent decision-making. The content is valuable but could be more compact and organized.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description covers pagination, result limits, truncation, filtering caveats, and refusal behavior. The main gap is an unexplained reference to '13 landing-page categories' and example data that could confuse rather than clarify. Overall, enough context is present for correct invocation of this simple 2-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It does for detailIds, explicitly explaining the comma-separated format, what omission does, and the bounded local result set. AssetName is only described as the lookup key without format details, but the critical parameter receives significant clarification.

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 opening sentence, 'Read asset metadata by assetName,' is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's primary operation and input. It distinguishes itself from sibling market tools by focusing on metadata retrieval rather than listings, prices, or activity.

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 provides usage context for detailIds (comma-separated, omission returns all details) and notes that filters are forwarded as supplied, but it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to prefer it over a sibling. Usage guidance is implied rather than directly stated.

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