asset_by_urn

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as what information is returned, whether it performs a read-only operation, and any potential errors. The description only says 'Get asset information' without elaborating on scope or response details, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant phrases. It efficiently conveys the core idea and an illustrative example without waste.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential input and source of the urn, but it lacks details on what 'asset information' includes or what the response looks like. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable but not thorough, so it earns a middling score.

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?

The input schema only defines asset_urn as a string with no description. The tool description adds meaningful detail by explaining that the urn is a unique identifier and providing an example format (dataset:...). This goes beyond the schema's minimal type definition, though it could still be more precise about accepted formats or variations.

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 verb and resource: 'Get asset information by urn.' It differentiates from siblings like search_asset by specifying the lookup mechanism (urn) and notes the urn is a unique identifier, which helps distinguish it from other asset-related tools.

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 description provides context that the urn can be found from a search, implying when to use this tool (when you have the urn) versus search_asset (when you don't). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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