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 does this well by explaining that fixes/APARs and newly announced capability are 'reported as context only, never scored as upgrade work,' and by promising a cited, source-backed, reviewed comparison. It does not mention any output format details or edge-case behavior, but for a read-only comparison tool this is a strong behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core action and report scope, then adds essential detail in later sentences. It is somewhat dense and includes the assetize.com reference, but every sentence contributes useful information about output, sourcing, or valid inputs.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the report sections, the scoring distinction, the accepted input formats, and known bucket values. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly addressing from/to ordering or error handling for invalid labels, but those are minor gaps given the schema already defines 'starting version' and 'target version.'

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that parameters can accept either version labels ('7.6.1.3', '9.2') or bucket ids ('9-2'), and by enumerating known buckets. This significantly improves an agent's ability to supply valid values for from and to.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Compare two Maximo versions/eras' and explicitly defines the output as a 'cited upgrade-impact report per functional area.' It also distinguishes the tool from narrower sibling tools by naming the included categories (deprecations, behaviour changes, API changes, gotchas, fixes/APARs, newly announced capability), so an agent can tell what this tool uniquely offers.

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 strong context on when to use the tool: comparing two versions/eras to get an upgrade-impact report, with clear acceptance of version labels or bucket ids. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of upgrade_checklist/fixes_gained/deprecation_register,' so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case.

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