Get Asset

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

While annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds non-obvious API details: assets are readable globally but written per company, there is no /assets/{id} route, and the fields array structure of {id, label, value, position}. This contextual information goes well beyond the structured fields.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by workflow guidance and return structure. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the final 'Operation class: Read' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, slightly preventing a perfect score.

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 single-asset fetch without an output schema, the description covers the required identifiers, the layout-driven fields, and a warning about update behavior. It does not enumerate all top-level return fields, but the 'every value' phrase plus the fields array explanation gives sufficient context for an agent to understand the response.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context, especially for company_id: why it is mandatory, that it is not guessable, and how to source it from other tool responses. This elevates it beyond the schema's baseline.

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 'Fetch one asset with every value stored on it', a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from list-focused siblings like hudu_list_assets. It also defines what an asset is and explains the layout-driven fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the need for both company_id and id, explains the lack of a /assets/{id} route, and provides step-by-step instructions for obtaining company_id via hudu_list_assets. It also advises reading the asset here before any update because a PUT replaces values, establishing clear when-to-use guidance.

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