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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that the response includes full geometry as GeoJSON plus all attributes, and warns that monetary amounts are bare numbers requiring get_organization_settings for currency_code.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: purpose first, return content second, and the currency-interpretation caveat last. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so ('full geometry as GeoJSON plus all attributes'). It also adds the currency caveat needed to correctly interpret amounts, making it complete for a simple read-by-ID tool whose annotations already cover safety.

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 there is only one parameter (id), whose UUID format and meaning are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb (Get), resource (infrastructure asset / feature), and scope (single, by ID). This distinguishes it from list_infrastructure_assets and from the generic get_asset sibling, so an agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'single ... by ID' — you need an ID to call it — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, and no exclusion for the list or generic asset tools. The note about calling get_organization_settings is about interpreting returned amounts, not about selecting this tool.

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