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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing a real behavioral trait of the returned data: amounts are bare numbers with no currency, requiring a separate get_organization_settings call. That is genuine added context not present in structured fields.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the currency warning follows compactly, with every clause earning 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 simple single-record getter with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete and even anticipates a downstream need (currency). No output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required, though a hint about the shape of the event would round it out.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents its type, format, and meaning. The description adds no further semantics about the id itself; the currency note concerns response data, not the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lifecycle strategy event by ID.' The word 'single' effectively contrasts it with the sibling list_infrastructure_lifecycle_events. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the singular/by-ID framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 (fetch one event when you have an ID), and the description adds a useful cross-reference telling the agent to call get_organization_settings for currency_code. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_infrastructure_lifecycle_events or any related tool, so guidance remains partial.

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