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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: that `code` is the stable natural key for cross-referencing a class from a network.

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 sentences plus a compact parenthetical. The purpose is front-loaded, and each clause (examples, natural key, filters) carries distinct value with no filler.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, filter fields, and key semantics. It could briefly note that output is a paged catalog, but no output schema exists and the schema explains auto-pagination.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description restates only category and is_builtin filtering and adds no syntax or format 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') and resource ('infrastructure feature classes'), reinforced by concrete examples (water_main, sewer_gravity, pavement). This clearly separates it from get_infrastructure_feature_class (single) and the create/update/delete siblings.

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?

Gives real usage context — reference classes via the `code` natural key when using them from a network — and points at the filterable fields. It does not explicitly contrast with get_infrastructure_feature_class, which is left implicit.

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