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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: geometry is returned as GeoJSON (Point vs LineString) in EPSG:4326, and monetary amounts are bare numbers with no currency. It doesn't discuss pagination behavior, though the schema does.

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 front-loaded sentences covering purpose, output format, filtering, and the currency caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the currency/get_organization_settings instruction is slightly tangential to the listing operation itself.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully discloses the return shape (GeoJSON geometry in EPSG:4326). With annotations covering safety and the schema covering all params, the description is largely complete; it omits any note on response volume or pagination despite 13 filters.

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% and all 13 parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's filter enumeration largely restates parameter intent rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, though the GeoJSON output note is useful and not a parameter.

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 (infrastructure assets), and clarifies the entity as 'features - segments or nodes', which disambiguates from generic assets like list_assets. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool to contrast with, but the resource specificity is strong enough for an agent to select it.

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?

Enumerates the filterable dimensions (network, feature_type, site, status, asset type, condition/risk ranges), giving clear guidance on how to narrow results. It also routes to get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating any amount. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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