Get a Fab asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing strong behavioral transparency. The description adds the specific context of returning normalized details and per-license prices, but does not disclose behavior for invalid inputs or edge cases. The added value is moderate given the rich 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word provides value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 2 parameters (1 required), a rich set of annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely adequate for selection. It could mention that listingIdOrUrl accepts either an ID or a URL, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'one Fab listing' but does not detail the listingIdOrUrl parameter (e.g., format, what it accepts) or the currency parameter. This leaves the agent with minimal guidance beyond the schema's structural definitions.

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 'Get normalized public details and per-license prices for one Fab listing,' specifying the verb (Get), resource (Fab listing), and the type of data returned (details and prices). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fab_search_assets which perform searches.

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 for retrieving details of a single Fab listing, and the naming suggests it complements search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the sibling set includes similar tools for other sources, making context clear.

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