get_owned_assets

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). It does not mention pagination, return format, or any side effects. Since annotations already cover safety, this is acceptable but lacks additional context like rate limits or data shape.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff or redundancy. Every word adds meaning, making it highly concise.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should help explain what is returned, but it does not. It also lacks context about pagination or how the parameters interact. The presence of annotations and complete schema slightly mitigates this, but the description itself is too minimal for a 4-parameter tool in a large sibling family.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions for address, limit, cursor, and offset. The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics, but baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all assets issued/owned by a specific address'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from vague generic names like get_assets by scoping to a specific address and ownership/issuance relationship.

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 given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Sibling tools like get_asset_balances and get_assets could overlap in purpose, but the description does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on name alone.

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