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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the catalog represents and the `code` natural key, but nothing about result shape or volume beyond what schema/annotations give.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the key usage rule. No wasted wording.

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 no output schema, the description adequately conveys that this is a read-only catalog with filterable fields and an identifying natural key. Minor gap: it doesn't note that all pages are auto-fetched, though the schema covers that.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the enums. The description's mention of filtering by category and is_builtin repeats the schema rather than adding syntax or semantics; 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) and resource (infrastructure feature classes) and adds clarifying examples of what a class is (water_main, sewer_gravity, pavement). This makes the resource concrete and distinguishes it from get_/create_/delete_infrastructure_feature_class, though the sibling distinction is implied rather than stated.

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 actionable context: use the `code` field as the natural key when referencing a class from a network, and that filtering is available by category or is_builtin. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or an alternative tool, but the usage context is clear.

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