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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of behavior when the ID is unknown (e.g. 404 vs null) or of any authorization constraints – so it neither enriches nor contradicts the 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?

One short sentence that front-loads the verb and the exact resource, with zero redundant or filler text. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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-record read with complete annotations, one fully documented parameter, and no output schema to explain, the description is nearly sufficient. A brief note on what a link represents or the failure mode for a missing/foreign ID 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 description coverage is 100%; the single 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema as the 'Project infrastructure asset link ID' with a UUID format and pattern. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 (Get) and resource (a single project ↔ infrastructure feature link), and clarifies the entity being fetched, which helps disambiguate from similarly named assets like get_project_asset or get_infrastructure_asset. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the obvious sibling list_project_infrastructure_assets, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied: the phrase 'by ID' signals this is the lookup you use once you already hold the link's UUID, implicitly routing discovery to list_project_infrastructure_assets. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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