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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – no not-found/error behavior, no indication of whether related records are included. For a read tool with annotations this low bar is met only marginally.

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 no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient rather than padded, though it leaves room for one clause of added context at no real cost.

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 trivial single-record lookup with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers the essentials. It omits routing to the list sibling and any mention of not-found behavior, but with no output schema required and annotations handling safety, the gaps are minor.

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% for the single id parameter (type string, format uuid, described as 'Infrastructure asset inspection ID'), so the schema does the work. The description's 'by ID' merely restates the parameter rather than adding format or sourcing guidance.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (single infrastructure asset inspection) and states the lookup key (by ID). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names the sibling list_infrastructure_asset_inspections as the alternative for multi-record retrieval.

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: 'by ID' signals a known-identifier lookup, which contrasts implicitly with the list_* sibling. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the list tool or what to do if the ID is unknown.

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