Get Asset Context

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses the bounding contract (every sub-list uses limit, no sub-fetch walks the account), the error semantics (refused credential -> UNAUTHORIZED 401 with a specific message; other failures keep their real code) and the no-partial-results guarantee. This is exactly the kind of trait an agent cannot recover from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then the bound and error contract, with each sentence carrying distinct information. The final sentence is information-dense but every clause (401, other codes, no partial results) earns its place; 'Returns AssetContext' is the one mild redundancy given an output schema exists.

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 composite read tool with a rich nested identifier schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers everything an agent still needs: scope of the fan-out, the limit bound, routing vs. hudu_search, and failure semantics. Return-value documentation is correctly delegated to the output 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 coverage is 50%, and the description's parameter content (limit default 25, max 100) largely restates what the schema and its 'CONFIG_ERROR' note already say. It adds no guidance on what the identifier forms resolve to or what 'expand' changes, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor exceeds the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Fetch an asset with the context an agent needs') and it explicitly frames itself against a known alternative ('Preferred over four separate calls when an agent starts from an asset'). It also names the exact sibling it is not ('Not for paging: call hudu_search'), so an agent can distinguish it from get_company_context/get_article_context without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition ('when an agent starts from an asset'), an explicit exclusion ('Not for paging: call hudu_search'), and states the alternative it replaces (four separate calls). Nothing about when/when-not is left to inference.

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