Get asset rubric summary

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

No annotations provided; description lists output fields (per-rubric dimension score, etc.) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. With no annotations, the description should cover such traits.

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?

Description is concise with 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then output details. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 no output schema, the description adequately details the return fields and provides usage guidance. However, it lacks mention of error handling or default behavior when both params are provided.

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%; the description adds no additional information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states it returns a precomputed rubric-style JSON summary for an asset, distinguishing it from sibling tool get_asset_research which likely returns research data.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for tables and analyst-agent routing) and which fields to prefer over legacy fields, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling usage.

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