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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (the 0-100 condition score interpretation bands) but discloses nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering beyond what the schema says.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, then supporting detail. Three sentences, no waffle; the grading scale is slightly tangential but earns its place for interpreting returned scores.

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 an all-optional, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (risk scores, condition scores, trigger events) and how to read the condition score. It is nearly complete, missing only sibling disambiguation.

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% and every parameter (page, per_page, asset_id, trigger_event) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or filtering nuance beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clear verb+resource: lists asset risk assessment history and names the content returned (risk scores, condition scores, trigger events over time). However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as list_infrastructure_asset_risk_history or get_asset_risk_history_entry, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. With get_asset_risk_history_entry (single entry) and list_infrastructure_asset_risk_history (infrastructure variant) as siblings, the description leaves routing entirely to inference.

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