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 structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the entries are populated automatically as a side effect of a feature's risk fields changing, and the available filtering dimensions. This is real value beyond the annotations.

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 what the tool lists, then the provenance caveat, then the filters. No wasted text.

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 full schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it: purpose, read-only nature, provenance, and filter options. No output schema exists, yet the description does not characterize the returned history entries, which is a minor gap for an agent reasoning about results.

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 (page, per_page, source, feature_id, captured_at_from/to) are already documented in structured data. The description restates the filter axes but adds no syntax, format, or default-behavior detail beyond the schema, 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) plus the resource (risk + condition history for infrastructure features), and clarifies it is history captured automatically when a feature's risk fields change. It distinguishes the 'history' concept from the sibling singular getter get_infrastructure_asset_risk_history_entry, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_asset_risk_history (asset vs infrastructure scope must be inferred).

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?

Provides implied usage context by naming the three filter dimensions (feature, source, capture date range) and noting read-only status, which tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_infrastructure_asset_risk_history_entry or list_asset_risk_history.

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