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

Annotations already cover the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description adds genuinely non-inferable facts: is_builtin is always forced to false regardless of input, and the call requires the infrastructure_feature_classes:write scope. It does not say what happens on a duplicate code or what the response contains, but the key side effect and auth requirement are disclosed.

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 sentences, none of which restates structured fields, with the core action stated first and the constraint and prerequisite following. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, the builtin restriction, and the required auth scope, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is error/return behaviour (e.g. code uniqueness conflicts, what identifier comes back), which an agent would plausibly need.

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% across all six properties, including the code pattern, the category enum, and length limits, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail (scale, sort_order behaviour, icon/color usage), which meets but does not exceed the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Create a tenant-defined infrastructure feature class'), with the tenant-defined qualifier that separates it from builtin/system-managed classes. It never names a sibling such as update_infrastructure_feature_class or bulk_create, so the differentiation comes from the qualifier rather than explicit routing.

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?

Gives a clear when-not: builtin classes are managed by AssetLab and cannot be created via API, which tells the agent this tool only applies to tenant-defined classes. It stops short of pointing at alternatives (bulk_create for multiples, update_infrastructure_feature_class for existing classes) or prerequisites beyond the auth scope.

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