get_assets_for_offer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states it 'gets' assets, implying read-only, but does not disclose permissions, error handling, pagination, or response format. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral details unspecified.

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 concise sentence of 12 words, with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and parameter behavior efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one string parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it omits details about return format, pagination, and error states, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that the 'offer' parameter accepts an Offer ID or name. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it does not clarify how to distinguish between the two inputs or provide format hints.

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 action 'get', the resource 'creative assets', and the context 'linked to an offer', with two lookup methods. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_offer' and 'search_offers', which focus on offer data rather than assets.

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 assets by offer, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Among siblings, it is the only asset-specific tool, but no 'when not to use' or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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