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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact—entries are populated automatically when a feature's risk fields change—but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or result volume.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. The standalone 'Read-only.' sentence is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, which is the only wasted element.

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 six-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and filtering adequately. Minor gaps around ordering and result volume remain, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 six parameters including defaults, max bounds and date formats are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter categories, adding no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

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 the risk + condition history captured for infrastructure features') and the parenthetical explains the data's provenance. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular get_infrastructure_asset_risk_history_entry sibling, but doesn't name it explicitly.

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 filtering axes (feature, source, capture date range) imply how to narrow results, which is useful usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling get_*_entry tool or any exclusion guidance.

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