get_bc_assets_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return fields and the asset_type constraint, adding value beyond the name. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, how invalid asset_type values are handled, or whether results are paginated — a moderate gap given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, constraint, return fields, and prerequisite. The primary action is front-loaded and there is zero filler or redundancy.

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 only two simple required parameters, an output schema present, and the cross-tool prerequisite stated, the definition is largely complete for a list-style tool. Minor omissions like pagination behavior or an explicit read-only statement are acceptable at this complexity level but prevent a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: asset_type gets explicit enum values in prose, and bc_id gets provenance ('Use get_business_centers_tool first to get bc_id'). It stops short of describing bc_id's format or giving examples, but it makes both parameters meaningfully usable.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Get all assets of a given type within a Business Center') and explicitly enumerates the three valid asset types (ADVERTISER, PIXEL, CATALOG), which differentiates it from siblings like get_video_assets_tool and get_pixels_tool. The scope and return fields are unambiguous.

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 clear sequencing guidance: 'Use get_business_centers_tool first to get bc_id,' which tells the agent what must happen before invoking this tool. It does not explicitly state exclusions or direct the agent to alternatives for other asset types, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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