get_data_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get full details' and retrieves 'complete metadata', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full details' entails beyond metadata. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage context. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., permissions, errors) to fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds meaning by specifying that the parameter is for retrieving details 'by ID', which clarifies the purpose of 'data_asset_id'. However, it doesn't explain the ID format, source, or validation rules, leaving some ambiguity. With low schema coverage, the description compensates partially but not fully.

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 verb ('Get full details') and resource ('data asset by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_data_assets' by focusing on retrieval of complete metadata for a single asset rather than searching or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_data_asset_file_urls' or 'download_and_read_a_file_from_data_asset', which are also retrieval tools but for different aspects of data 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Use after compact search to retrieve complete metadata'), implying it's for detailed follow-up after a broader search. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is practical and helps distinguish it from initial search operations like 'search_data_assets'.

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