get_asset_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only lookup and previews the output fields, but it does not disclose failure modes, authorization/ownership consequences, or any limitations. It is minimally adequate for a simple getter.

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 sentence with no filler; every phrase contributes either scope ('one owned asset') or expected content. Exemplary concision for a simple lookup.

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?

The output schema covers return-value structure, so the description doesn't need to restate it, and the one-parameter tool is simple. However, the description omits when to use the tool versus its siblings and leaves parameter semantics underspecified, so it is adequate but not complete.

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% and the lone asset_id parameter is never defined, formatted, or tied to the description beyond the phrase 'one owned asset.' The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource ('one owned asset') and enumerates the returned content ('summary, usage notes, gallery/video links, store URL'). It does not use an explicit verb beyond the tool name, and the contrast with siblings like search_owned_assets is only implicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'One owned asset' implies this is for retrieving details on a specific already-known asset rather than searching across assets, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over search_owned_assets or other siblings. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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