assets_get_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Look up' implies a read operation, but the description does not mention whether the item is returned, what a missing ID does, or any permissions or side effects. This is a minimal disclosure.

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, focused sentence with no filler or repeated schema details. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it tells the agent what to pass and where the ID comes from. However, it does not explain the return format or error behavior, which the absence of an output schema makes more important.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the assetId field. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the ID is 'short numeric' and that it appears on labels/QR codes, which helps the agent recognize the correct input source.

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 action ('Look up') and the target ('an item by its short numeric asset ID'), plus the source context ('asset labels/QR codes'). It does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling items_get, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'as printed on asset labels/QR codes' gives useful context for when the short numeric ID is available. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool or when to prefer siblings like items_get or items_list.

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