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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description merely restates structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what the entry contains, whether a missing ID errors or returns empty, or any auth/permission requirement.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, with no padding or hedging. The trailing 'Read-only' clause is redundant against the annotations and doesn't earn its place, which keeps this just short of a 5.

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-entity getter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any retrieval context the agent might need, such as how the returned risk history entry relates to its parent infrastructure asset or how it differs from the list variant.

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 the single 'id' parameter is fully documented as a UUID in the schema. 'By ID' in the description matches but adds no format, lookup, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get a single infrastructure asset risk history entry by ID'), which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named siblings list_infrastructure_asset_risk_history or get_asset_risk_history_entry, so an agent must infer which one to pick from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The obvious sibling, list_infrastructure_asset_risk_history, is never referenced, so the boundary between 'fetch one entry' and 'list entries' is left entirely to inference.

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