get_asset

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the data included (financial, lifecycle) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response structure or error handling.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the purpose and the type of data returned. It could be more complete by mentioning the output format, but it is sufficient for a straightforward retrieval.

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 100% and the schema already describes the single parameter 'sys_id' as 'Asset sys_id'. The description adds no further meaning beyond what is in 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'IT asset', and the scope 'including financial and lifecycle data'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_assets' and 'update_asset'.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving a single asset's details, contrasting with 'list_assets' for listing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_asset_contracts' or 'get_asset_lifecycle'.

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