get_assets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only search operation and the data it returns. It does not disclose pagination or rate limits, but for a simple search tool it covers the essential behavior.

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, with the core operation front-loaded and the usage context in the second sentence. No filler.

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 simple no-required-parameter search tool, the description adequately states what is returned and why to use it. It lacks an explicit return format, but no output schema exists and the listed fields plus schema defaults are sufficient for safe invocation.

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 75%, so the description is not required to fully compensate. It adds slight value by framing the search by asset number/description for lookup before work orders, but it does not explain the limit parameter or value formats beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('assets in MAS') and characterizes the returned information (details, location, status, description). It implies differentiation from work-order tools by noting its usefulness before querying work orders, but it does not explicitly name or rule out siblings like get_asset_work_history.

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?

It provides a clear use case: look up asset numbers before querying work orders. This tells the agent when to reach for the tool, but it does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools.

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