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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, and notably does not mention its pagination/auto-fetch-all behavior, which is the one non-obvious trait of this tool.

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, purpose front-loaded before the filtering clause, with no filler. It is efficiently sized for the amount of information conveyed.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, complete schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. The minor residual gap is the asset-vs-feature wording and the absence of any note on the automatic pagination.

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%, so all five parameters (page, per_page, search, category, feature_id) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'feature, category, or name search' merely restates those filters without adding format, matching, or default semantics; 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 (List) and resource (documents attached to infrastructure features), so the agent knows the shape of the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent list_asset_documents sibling, and the phrase 'infrastructure features' sits slightly awkwardly against the tool's 'infrastructure_asset_documents' naming.

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 lists filter options but never says when to prefer this tool over a sibling such as list_asset_documents or when the filters are required. No when/when-not guidance and no named alternative, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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