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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: base_target is the org-wide base rather than a building-level value, and it clarifies that the fields are not currency ('Not money'), which meaningfully shapes how the values should be interpreted.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then dense value-adding semantics about the returned fields and units. Each sentence carries information, though the field-range enumeration is slightly list-like and could be tighter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's explanation of field ranges (fci/asset_condition_avg 0-100, risk_score_avg 0-25), directionality (higher/lower-is-better), and the base_target meaning does the work of clarifying return values. It is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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% with a single well-documented 'id' parameter. The description merely restates 'by ID' without adding format, validation, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single system LoS target) with scope (by ID), which cleanly separates it from list_system_los_targets. It does not explicitly contrast with the other single-get LoS siblings (get_infrastructure_los_target, get_los_proposed_target), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 cross-references list_system_los_targets for the criticality-adjustment explanation, which gives useful context, but it never states when to use this direct get versus alternatives. Usage is only implied by the fact that it fetches one record by ID.

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