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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that answers cite evidence with [R#] markers and URLs, that it DECLINES when the record cannot support an answer, and that it never guesses. This is rich, specific, and lets an agent predict the tool's behavior accurately.

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?

The description is two tight sentences, front-loading the core purpose and evidence behavior, then adding the scope of use. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's core behavior, evidence citing, and decline mechanism, and the schema fully documents parameters. It does not describe the exact return format (e.g., plain text vs structured), but given the tool's nature and the absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, and both parameters (question and version) are adequately described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, 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?

The description clearly states the tool answers IBM Maximo questions using source-backed knowledge, and it explicitly lists the question types it is best for (how-to, troubleshooting, version-behaviour, error). This distinguishes it from the more specialized sibling tools (e.g., lookup_error_code, compare_maximo_versions) that focus on single aspects.

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 gives a 'Best for' scope, implying it is not the right choice for very specific queries better handled by siblings, but it does not name any alternatives or state when NOT to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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