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 description's 'Read-only' is redundant. The description adds no further behavioral context such as required permissions or error behavior, so it minimally satisfies transparency beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the essential action and resource, with no extraneous words. The 'Read-only' note is short and clear, maintaining conciseness.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of comprehensive annotations, the description covers the core operation. However, it could mention that it returns a single entry and any potential errors, though the lack of output schema means return details are not expected.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, fully documenting it as a UUID. The description mentions 'by ID' but adds no format, validation, or semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation.

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') and resource ('infrastructure asset risk history entry') and specifies retrieval by ID, distinguishing it from the list variant. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other get_* history entry tools like get_los_targets_history_entry or get_site_fci_history_entry, leaving that for schema inspection.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_infrastructure_asset_risk_history or other retrieval tools. It implicitly suggests it fetches a single entry by ID, but provides no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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