get_asset_product_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that assets are retrieved; it does not mention pagination behavior, return format, potential performance concerns, or that it is a read-only operation. The operational details are minimal and leave the agent guessing about side effects or 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 a single concise sentence with a short parenthetical business context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no unnecessary filler. Every element earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with four parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential 'what' but omits context like what 'Asset solution 기준' means operationally (e.g., filtering source). The 'first' parameter is already documented in the schema, so no gap there. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., empty result behavior) makes it only minimally complete for a basic query tool.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with examples, so the description adds little beyond restating that vendor/name/version define the product. This matches the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting; the description offers no additional semantic nuance.

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 tool retrieves a list of assets with a specific software product installed, using vendor/product/version as filters. It is specific about the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'get_installed_applications' which likely serves a similar purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions a business requirement but does not state conditions for selection or explicitly point to siblings like 'get_installed_applications'. Agents must infer usage context without explicit direction.

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