get_asset_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context by enumerating metadata fields but does not disclose any behavior beyond that (e.g., error handling for non-existent assets, rate limits, or response format). With annotations present, this is adequate, though not rich.

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 a single clear, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists examples of metadata. No filler or redundant content.

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 read tool with good schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficient. There is no output schema, so the description compensates reasonably by listing common metadata fields. It could be more exhaustive, but it adequately sets expectations.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'asset' with examples (XCP, PEPECASH, A12345). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('metadata for a Counterparty asset'), and lists concrete metadata fields (supply, divisibility, issuer, description). This distinguishes it from sibling asset-related tools like get_asset_orders or get_asset_balances, which focus on different aspects.

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 it: when you need asset metadata such as supply, divisibility, or issuer. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear. A brief note distinguishing it from get_assets (which lists assets) would strengthen it, but it is still clear.

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