get_asset_shares

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral context. It only restates the operation with scope; it does not mention pagination, whether inherited/effective shares are included, required permissions, or response shape. Nothing contradicts the read-only implication, but the burden is largely unmet.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant qualification. Every word earns its place.

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 list operation the description is minimally sufficient, but without annotations or an output schema it leaves implicit details such as result format and the boundary of 'all shares' (direct vs inherited). It would benefit from one clarifying clause.

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%: asset_id is fully documented as 'The asset UUID'. The description adds only the contextual idea of 'specific asset', so it meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter meaning.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('shares'), and a scoping qualifier ('for a specific asset'). It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like list_shares (global) and get_collection_shares (collection-scoped).

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 'for a specific asset' gives clear selection context: use when you need all shares belonging to one asset. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it misses the top score.

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