get_selected_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only fetch operation, but it does not disclose any edge behaviors such as handling of missing IDs, partial failures, or rate limits. The `aggregates_only` parameter changes the response semantics and is not mentioned in the description. Adequate for a simple read but not rich.

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, each earning its place. The first states the core action, the second gives a precise workflow recommendation. No filler, front-loaded, and highly scannable for an agent.

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 a straightforward batch hydration read with two params, one required. The description sufficiently covers the primary use case, mentions the source (search_assets), and explains the benefit (avoiding round-trips). It does not discuss error handling or response format, but given no output schema, a modest description is acceptable. Slightly more detail on the `aggregates_only` behavior would improve completeness but is already in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the context 'full asset records' and 'one call' which aligns with the `ids` parameter's purpose, but it does not elaborate beyond the schema's 'Asset ids to hydrate.' The `aggregates_only` parameter is only explained in the schema. The description does not meaningfully increase parameter understanding.

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 verb-resource construction: 'Fetch full asset records for an explicit ID list in one call.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling `get_asset` (single asset) and `search_assets` (query-based, returns summaries). The 'explicit ID list' scope and batch behavior are unambiguous.

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 second sentence provides explicit usage context: 'Use after `search_assets` returned a set of IDs and you want full attributes without N round-trips.' This names a specific preceding sibling, states the reason for choosing this tool, and implies the alternative (repeated calls to `get_asset`) is less efficient. Clear when-to-use and no ambiguity.

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