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 — no note on automatic pagination semantics, no return-shape or ordering hints — so it contributes little the structured fields don't already provide.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scoping behavior; no filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it omits useful routing information rather than being wastefully long.

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 simple, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the essentials. It stops short of explaining relationship to sibling list/get/create/delete part tools, which given the large sibling set is the main thing an agent would still need to infer.

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 four parameters (page, per_page, feature_id, part_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description's "filter by feature or part" merely restates feature_id/part_id at a higher level, adding no format or usage detail, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a clear verb ("List") and resource ("parts associated with infrastructure features"), which is specific enough for an agent to know what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings like list_asset_parts or get_infrastructure_asset_part, so a little inference is needed.

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?

"Filter by feature or part" describes a capabability, not when to use the tool or how it differs from sibling list tools such as list_parts or list_asset_parts. There is no guidance on when-not to use it and no named alternative, leaving routing entirely to the agent.

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