fassets_agent_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the source registry and that the agent parameter accepts either an agent vault address or an owner management address, but it does not disclose lookup behavior, error cases, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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?

Two sentences carry a dense, useful payload: the tool's purpose, the specific returned fields, the registry, and the accepted input address types. There is no filler or repetition of schema information, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 the relatively simple parameter set and lack of an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the returned fields and clarifies the agent parameter. It falls slightly short of full completeness by not describing how asset and network affect the lookup or what happens when an address is not found, but these are moderate gaps rather than fatal ones.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It adds real semantics for 'agent' by specifying the two accepted address types, but it does not explain the role of 'asset' or 'network' beyond what the enum values already imply. This is partial compensation, not full coverage.

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 opens with a specific resource ('FAssets agent') and a clear noun ('details'), then enumerates the exact fields returned (name, description, icon/logo URL, terms-of-use URL, whitelist status). It names the source registry, AgentOwnerRegistry, and clarifies what address inputs are accepted, making it easy to distinguish from siblings such as fassets_agent_status or fassets_system_state.

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?

The description implies usage context: use this when you need human-facing agent registration details rather than operational status or system state. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, leaving some routing guidance to inference.

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