get_assets

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the name, such as pagination, filtering behavior, or return format. It simply restates the function.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise but also somewhat under-specified, though conciseness is about brevity, not completeness.

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 and minimal description, the tool lacks context about what it returns, how pagination works, and how it differs from closely related asset tools. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (limit, named, cursor, offset) clearly described. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 uses specific verbs 'search or list' and identifies the resource as 'Counterparty assets,' making the core function clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_asset_info or get_owned_assets, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for broad listing/searching while other tools are for specific asset details or owned assets. Thus, an agent has no basis to choose this over siblings.

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