Get Asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Read operation,' which merely restates readOnlyHint. Worse, the first sentence says the Serve API is used to 'interact with, and delete hosted assets,' which contradicts the read-only annotation and creates confusion.

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 first sentence is off-topic for a getter and introduces a contradictory deletion scope. The base URL and 'Read operation' fragments add clutter without value. Only one sentence ('Use this endpoint to fetch an asset by asset id') earns its place.

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 2-param getter with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential operation and id distinction. But it lacks any mention of error behavior for missing assets, account-scoped credentials beyond what the schema says, and it includes misleading context about deletion.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'id' and 'account' thoroughly. The description adds only the asset-id vs render-id distinction, which is useful but marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource: 'fetch an asset by asset id.' It distinguishes asset id from render id, which helps separate it from get_asset_by_render_id. However, the opening sentence about deleting hosted assets is misleading for a read operation and muddies the purpose.

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?

It gives an implied usage ('Use this endpoint to fetch an asset by asset id') but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to get_asset_by_render_id or get_generated_asset. An agent must infer the correct sibling from the resource id note.

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