Get asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations — provider scopes, locks and credits apply, and it is a current V5 operation — but says nothing about error behavior or what happens on a missing/foreign uid.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the operation. The trailing 'Read operation' is redundant against readOnlyHint=true, but overall the text is tight and wastes little space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to describe what get_asset returns, and it says nothing about the asset object or its fields. Combined with the undocumented uid and the missing usage guidance, an agent has an incomplete picture for a retrieval tool.

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 50%: the account parameter is documented in-schema, but uid has only pattern/length constraints. The description merely echoes the uid as a path template without explaining what an asset uid is or where it comes from, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 names a concrete verb+resource (GET an asset by uid) and gives the exact endpoint, so an agent can tell it apart from list_assets, upload_asset, and check_assets. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from siblings, but retrieval of one asset by uid is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent when to fetch a single asset versus list_assets or check_assets, and no prerequisites are stated. 'Read operation' restates the obvious rather than routing the caller.

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