Get an asset group by id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the record shape varies by subtype and gives concrete examples, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention auth, errors, or missing-id behavior, but for a straightforward read operation this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and target, while the second adds necessary subtype details, making it both efficient and well-structured.

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 low-complexity one-parameter getter with an output schema available, the description covers the core functionality and subtype variability well. It could mention error handling or how to obtain group_id, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 no description for group_id (0% schema coverage), and the description only says 'by its id', which just restates the parameter name. No format, source, or example is provided, so the description does not meaningfully compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Fetch'), resource ('one asset group's full record'), and scope ('by its id'), making the purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list/get tools by explaining subtype-specific response shapes.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a single asset group's full record by id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context (sibling tools like list_asset_groups) makes the intended use obvious.

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