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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: monetary amounts are returned as bare numbers with no currency attached, and an agent must fetch currency_code from get_organization_settings before presenting a value.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the currency caveat following. Every clause 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 read-only single-record fetch with no output schema and one documented parameter, the description covers the critical gotcha (currency-less amounts) that an agent would otherwise get wrong. Missing only minor details such as not-found error behavior.

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% for the single `id` parameter (UUID), so the schema carries the burden. The description's 'by ID' adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already shows, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('Get a single facility lifecycle strategy event by ID') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named get_infrastructure_lifecycle_event via the 'facility' qualifier. An agent can tell this is a single-record fetch rather than a list operation.

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?

Provides one conditional dependency (call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating an amount), which is useful, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus list_asset_lifecycle_events for retrieval or the update/delete siblings. Usage is implied by the 'by ID' phrasing rather than stated.

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