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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the entire safety profile of this read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond scope—nothing about pagination handling, result ordering, or empty-result behavior, though pagination hints live in the schema.

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 with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the filters follow. Every clause earns 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 zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and a complete read-only annotation set, the description is adequate to invoke correctly. It omits what a returned document looks like and how to page through large result sets, but those gaps are minor given the structured data already present.

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, search, category, per_page, feature_id) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the filter dimensions (feature, category, name search) without adding format, matching, or default-value semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (documents attached to infrastructure features), plus the filterable facets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling document-list tools such as list_asset_documents or list_project_documents, but the resource qualifier 'infrastructure features' makes its scope reasonably clear.

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 implies when it applies (documents on infrastructure features) and lists the filtering options, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names the alternatives (e.g., list_asset_documents) an agent should choose between.

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