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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (GeoJSON geometry plus attributes) and the currency-handling caveat, which are behavioral facts not present in structured metadata.

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 sentences, all earning their place: the first defines the operation, the second describes the return, the third flags a downstream dependency. The core purpose is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and safe annotations. With no output schema, the description appropriately supplies the return format (GeoJSON plus attributes) and the currency caveat, covering everything an agent needs to call and interpret the result correctly.

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 a single required id parameter whose UUID format and meaning are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'by ID' and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 ('Get a single infrastructure asset (feature) by ID') and clarifies the return payload (full geometry as GeoJSON plus all attributes). The word 'single' implicitly separates it from list_infrastructure_assets, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred 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?

Includes one concrete usage instruction – call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating an amount – which is a genuine prerequisite. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_asset or list_infrastructure_assets, so the caller is left to infer the selection context.

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