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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or how the automatic all-pages fetching behaves, which is relevant for a list 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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and filters second; no filler or redundancy. The second sentence is essentially a parameter enumeration, which is slightly wasteful given the schema already lists them, but it is not verbose.

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?

With rich annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, most of what an agent needs is present. Still, for a 9-parameter list tool the description omits any note on pagination/return volume or default behavior that would help the agent call it correctly.

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 every one of the 9 parameters is already documented (including page/per_page defaults and date formats). The description merely restates the filter categories already in the schema and adds no syntax, range, or combination semantics beyond it, so 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 and resource: 'List inspections recorded against infrastructure assets,' which clearly separates it from create_/update_/get_infrastructure_asset_inspection siblings. It does not explicitly name the singular getter as the alternative, but the plural list scope is evident from the name and description.

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 usage by enumerating the filter dimensions, so an agent can infer this is the query/browse tool for inspections. However, it never states when to prefer it over get_infrastructure_asset_inspection or list_infrastructure_assets, and gives no prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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