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 covered. Beyond that the description adds only the addressing convention; it says nothing about what happens when the code is unknown (null vs error) or whether requests are cached. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is a fair 3.

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, zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded and the disambiguating caveat is placed immediately after it.

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 no output schema, an agent needs the key format and the addressing convention, both of which are given. It could still say more about the returned object's shape or what an unknown code yields, but nothing essential to making the call is missing.

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 schema already supplies the snake_case pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by supplying a concrete example value ('water_main') and by explicitly ruling out the UUID form, which prevents the most likely wrong call.

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 and resource ('Get a single infrastructure feature class') and pins the retrieval key ('by its `code`'). The word 'single' distinguishes it from list_infrastructure_feature_classes, and the code-vs-UUID note separates it from the UUID-addressed get_* siblings in this API.

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: call it when you have a feature-class code and want one record. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor a named alternative (e.g. list_infrastructure_feature_classes for discovery). Adequate but with an obvious routing gap.

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