vapi_market_asset_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively discloses several important behaviors: it makes only one logical GET request, does not auto-fetch continuation pages, locally limits details to 100 rows and 256 KiB with truncation reported, and refuses oversized records without partial fields. It also states that 'other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' and that effectiveness is not implied. These are significant, non-obvious traits that help an agent anticipate outcomes. However, it does not cover all possible behaviors (e.g., error handling, authentication), but given the absence of annotations, it is notably transparent.

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 longer than necessary and includes some extraneous specifics like 'SKINS returned 788 records' and 'All 13 landing-page categories were captured,' which seem like debugging or test artifacts rather than general use guidance. While the main purpose is front-loaded, these details dilute the focus. The structure is sequential but not maximally concise; each sentence carries information, but some could be trimmed or omitted without loss of clarity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the response contains. It mentions that additional per-asset fields are preserved and that truncation is reported in text and metadata, but it does not enumerate the metadata fields, response structure, or any error behavior. It also does not clarify what 'all 13 landing-page categories' refers to or how they relate to the response. The tool is for reading asset metadata, but the description leaves the expected return format underspecified, making it incomplete for an agent to fully predict the output.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value for detailIds by clarifying that it accepts comma-separated IDs, not a JSON array string, and that omission returns all available details. It also notes that required inputs reflect tool policy and upstream requirements. However, for assetName it adds no additional semantics beyond the obvious meaning from the name. Overall, it partially compensates for the schema gap but does not fully explain all parameter nuances.

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 opens with a clear and specific verb-resource pair: 'Read asset metadata by assetName.' This explicitly states what the tool does and is unambiguous. Although it does not contrast with sibling tools, the purpose is precise and self-explanatory, warranting a top score.

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 does not mention alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. While the opening implies usage (for reading asset metadata by name), there is no reference to alternatives like vapi_market_landing or other market tools. The parameter instructions (e.g., comma-separated detailIds) are usage hints for that parameter, not tool selection guidance. Thus, only implied usage, no exclusions.

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