app_asset_library_ref_data_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavior-disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about what is returned, required permissions, or side effects. The raw path conveys only that it is a GET, which is the bare minimum.

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?

It is short, but not concise in a useful way: it simply repeats the identical path string twice in parentheses, which is wasted tokens rather than a front-loaded summary.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needed to explain what an 'appAssetLibraryRefData' instance is and what a caller gains from fetching it. The 100% schema coverage covers the inputs, but the domain meaning of the resource and its return are left entirely unexplained.

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%, with both 'id' and 'fields_appAssetLibraryRefData' fully documented including the field enum list. Per the baseline rule, the schema does the heavy lifting, so a 3 is appropriate even though the description adds nothing about parameters.

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 is just the HTTP path 'GET /v1/appAssetLibraryRefData/{id}' repeated twice, which restates the tool name rather than describing what it does in domain terms. An agent can infer it fetches a single app asset library reference-data resource, but there is no verb-plus-resource phrasing that distinguishes it from app_asset_library_ref_data_get_collection or related get_instance tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the collection sibling or the neighboring asset-library tools. Nothing states prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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