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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the return shape (GeoJSON Point for nodes, LineString for segments, EPSG:4326) and the currency caveat about bare numbers. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, but it is well above the annotation-only baseline.

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 tight sentences that lead with the resource definition, then return format, then filters and the currency caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the filter enumeration is a partial restatement of the schema.

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 13-parameter, zero-required list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers resource identity, filter dimensions, geometry return format with CRS, and a cross-tool dependency for currency. Only pagination/result-size behavior is left unaddressed.

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 13 parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the filter family and adds the currency-code handling note, but adds no syntax or format detail (e.g., condition/risk score units) beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource and clarifies what an 'infrastructure asset' is (features - segments or nodes), so the agent knows this lists infrastructure rather than generic assets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_assets, which is the most likely confusion point, keeping it from a 5.

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 enumerates the filter dimensions (network, feature_type, site, status, asset type, condition/risk ranges), which implies how to scope a query, and it gives a proactive usage instruction to call get_organization_settings for currency before quoting amounts. However, it never states when to use this tool instead of list_assets or the other infrastructure list endpoints.

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