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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the tool returns link relationships and supports filtering, but does not describe authorization needs, return cardinality, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by the filtering capability. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states the listed entity and filtering options; only minor details like return format or pagination defaults are absent, and those are largely covered by the schema descriptions.

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 four parameters (page, per_page, feature_id, project_id) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'filter by project or feature' mirrors project_id and feature_id without adding syntax, combination rules, or meaning 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 ('links between projects and infrastructure features'), making clear this is a junction/association listing distinct from list_project_assets or list_infrastructure_assets. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, so not 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 phrase 'Filter by project or feature' implies when to use the tool (to retrieve filtered links), but gives no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternative tools like get_project_infrastructure_asset for single records. Usage is only implied.

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