Get asset character

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope constraint (the authenticated user's library), implying an auth/ownership requirement, but says nothing about not-found behavior or what the returned character contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, plus no output schema to explain, the description is minimally sufficient. It still omits what an asset character represents and any error semantics, which are the only remaining gaps.

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 100%: character_id and account are both documented in the schema (including the distinction between account key label and provider owner ID). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ("Get") and resource ("asset character") plus a scope ("authenticated user's fal Assets library"), so it is not pure tautology. However, it does not clarify what an asset character is or how it differs from the many sibling retrieval tools (get_asset_collection, get_asset, list_asset_characters), leaving the purpose only minimally specified.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_asset_characters, get_asset_collection, or get_asset. The description gives no prerequisites, no when-not-to-use condition, and names no alternative, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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