get_asset

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description is consistent with these (a read operation). It adds context by specifying the data scope (financial and lifecycle data), but doesn't go further to explain potential errors, permissions, or response format. The added context is minimal but non-contradictory.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words or repetition. It is concise and efficient.

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 operation with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It specifies that the tool returns 'full details' and highlights financial and lifecycle data, making the behavior clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully describes the only parameter (sys_id, 'Asset sys_id') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter itself; it only elaborates on the output scope. This matches the baseline of 3 for complete schema coverage with no extra parameter info in the description.

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 states the tool retrieves full details of an IT asset, specifically including financial and lifecycle data. It distinguishes itself from list_assets (which lists assets) and track_asset_lifecycle (which likely tracks lifecycle processes), making it obvious this is for fetching detailed data about a single asset.

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 usage for retrieving detailed asset information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_assets or update_asset. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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