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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what is returned, whether the record may be absent, or how it relates to its parent infrastructure asset.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is wasted, though there is also very little content.

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 simple single-record read whose annotations cover safety and whose schema fully documents the one parameter, this is close to sufficient — no output schema exists so return values need not be described. It falls just short because it gives no indication of what the inspection object contains or its relationship to the parent asset.

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% with a single documented 'id' parameter (uuid format and pattern), so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'by ID' merely restates the parameter and adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Clear verb ('Get') plus specific resource ('a single infrastructure asset inspection') and the retrieval key ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_infrastructure_asset_inspections by the word 'single', though it never names that sibling or any other alternative.

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 only implied: 'single ... by ID' suggests fetching one known record rather than enumerating, which contrasts with the list_* family. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no naming of the alternative list tool, and no prerequisite or error-case guidance.

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