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 real domain context – what criticality means and that null is treated as medium – but does not cover pagination behavior or return shape, and the criticality discussion risks implying a filter that the schema does not expose.

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?

Front-loads the resource and its definition, then the criticality semantics, then filtering, in three tight sentences. The criticality clause is dense but informative rather than padding.

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 no output schema, the description covers the resource meaning, one attribute's semantics, and available filters. Pagination is handled by the schema, so what remains missing (return shape, sorting) is minor.

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 page, per_page, search, and feature_class are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only a restatement of the feature_class/search filters and no format or syntax detail beyond the schema example ('water_main').

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 clear verb+resource (list infrastructure networks) and even defines the resource as 'named groupings of features bound to one feature class'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list/get tools such as get_infrastructure_network or list_infrastructure_feature_classes, but the name and definition make the target unambiguous.

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 implies usage by naming filters (feature_class code, text search) but never states when to choose this tool over get_infrastructure_network or other list endpoints, nor any prerequisites. Implied rather than explicit guidance.

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