store_get

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

Annotations already signal read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context by stating that the tool reaches an external service over the network and that the returned details include license info needed for download, which helps set latency and failure expectations.

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, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the network behavior, then the exclusion and alternative. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler 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?

For a one-parameter read-only getter, the description covers what the tool returns, the external nature of the service, and when not to use it. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by specifying that it returns full details including license info needed to download.

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 sole parameter, id, is already fully described in the schema as 'Store asset id (from store_search)'. The description merely says 'by id' and does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific operation: retrieving full details for a single public store asset by ID, including license info needed for download. This distinguishes it from the related sibling tools like store_search and store_download, and from project-local get_asset/list_assets.

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 provides a when-not-to-use case: fetching a project-local asset, and names the alternative tool (list_assets). The external-service/network note also sets expectations about when this tool is appropriate.

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