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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context by explicitly enumerating the side effects it will not cause (no provider authorization, no credit spend, no account changes, no release publishing). It stops short of describing response shape or pagination, but with an output schema present that is acceptable.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the affirmative purpose before the boundary clauses. Zero filler, though the second sentence is a dense four-item negative list that takes a moment to parse.

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?

With rich annotations, a fully documented single-parameter schema, and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide to call this and how. Minor gap: it does not clarify that omitting 'view' is the default capabilities mode, which is left entirely to the schema.

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% and the single 'view' parameter is fully enum-documented with an explanation of what omitting it does. The description restates the view names (readiness, safe_checks, test_catalog, evidence) but adds no formatting or selection guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Discover InfraPulse production capabilities and optional read-only audit views') and implicitly differentiates itself from siblings by declaring what it does not do (authorize, spend credits, change accounts, publish releases), which maps onto authorize/execute/quote. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 negative framing ('does not authorize... spend credits... change accounts... publish releases') steers the agent away from using this for mutations, and the schema notes that omitting 'view' gives plain capabilities discovery. However, the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-to-choose-an-alternative guidance relative to authorize, connect, quote, or execute.

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