Get game asset details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds value by revealing what fields the full record includes (files, license guidance, alternates, attribution text) beyond what the simple asset_id schema implies. This behavioral context about the richness of the return data is helpful and not redundant with annotations.

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?

Single sentence front-loading the purpose and result content. Every word earns its place – 'full normalized record', 'including files, license guidance, alternates, and attribution text' adds concrete value without fluff. Could not be shorter without losing meaning.

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?

Given 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't explain what 'alternates' or 'attribution text' means in detail, but the agent can infer from context. It also doesn't mention pagination or error cases, but for a simple read-retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 already has 100% coverage with a well-described 'asset_id' parameter. The description adds context by stating the parameter is the assetId from search_game_assets, clarifying the origin domain and that it's not just any ID. The schema says it well, but the description reinforces the provenance.

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 'Read', specifies the resource 'full normalized record for an asset', and distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it operates on results from search_game_assets. It lists what's included (files, license guidance, alternates, attribution text) and contrasts with search_game_assets which returns abbreviated results.

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 explicitly states 'returned by search_game_assets', telling the agent to call this tool after using its sibling. It implies this is for retrieving full details of a specific asset rather than listing or searching, but doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or what use case would require a different tool. Some guidance is provided by the sibling list context.

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