describe_asset

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds only the shape of the returned content, with no notes on cost, latency, or whether the profile/quality computation is expensive, so it adds modest value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or restatement of the title. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing usage guidance rather than compensating for it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is routing: nothing explains how this differs from get_asset_profile or get_quality, which is the main decision an agent must make here.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning; 'for one asset' implies asset_id is a single-asset identifier rather than a list or filter, but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance. Marginal value over the bare schema.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Return') plus the specific payload (quality results, profile, inferences) scoped to 'one asset', so the agent knows what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings get_asset_profile and get_quality, whose names suggest they return overlapping subsets of this 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives. With siblings get_asset_profile and get_quality available, the agent cannot tell whether to call this aggregator or the narrower tools, or whether this is a superset that makes them redundant.

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