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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the resource is addressed by code, not UUID, which prevents a common invocation error.

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 with no waste; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the identifier caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and identifier convention. Return shape is unspecified but not required here; a brief note on not-found behavior would make it complete.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value with a concrete example ('water_main') that makes the snake_case pattern tangible in a way the schema's regex alone does not.

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 ('Get'), the exact resource ('a single infrastructure feature class'), and the addressing key ('by its code'). The 'single' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_infrastructure_feature_classes.

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 implied by 'single ... by its code' versus the list sibling, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over list_infrastructure_feature_classes or what happens on a missing code. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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