assetfare_read_session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it 'makes a network request; never signs or submits' and states that the view selection 'never advances the workflow.' No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the key routing instruction and safety caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with 3 fully described parameters and no side effects, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, legacy vs v2 routing, and behavioral guarantees. It could go slightly further by describing the shape of the returned data, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description stating exactly which projections can be read.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning; the schema already documents view projections, the legacy session UUID, and the sensitive access token. The phrase 'current unsigned action' slightly reinforces the next_action enum, but the schema already explains this.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read a legacy v1 session summary, workflow state, receipt, or current unsigned action.' It clearly identifies the legacy v1 scope and distinguishes it from v2 tools by naming the exact alternative (assetfare_v2_session_get).

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('inspect or resume a session created by assetfare_create_session'), when not to use it ('for a v2 session use assetfare_v2_session_get instead'), and what to avoid ('do not use this call to advance state'). This fully routes an agent to the correct sibling.

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