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 explains that items are resolved against the corpus and dropped if not published, and that VERIFY items are questions to settle against IBM. This gives meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'returns checklist'.

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, zero fluff. The purpose is stated first, followed by the key behavioral caveat (CITED vs VERIFY, resolution logic). Every clause earns its place and the description is immediately scannable.

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 checklist tool with all parameters documented and a clear behavioral explanation, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the exact return structure (e.g., array of items, statuses), but since there's no output schema, the agent might benefit from knowing the shape of the response. However, the core behavior is covered.

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%, with descriptions for from, to, and phase including examples. The description adds no extra semantic meaning to the parameters themselves; it only mentions the optional phase in passing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents all parameters.

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 states a clear purpose: provides a phased checklist (before/during/after) for a Maximo move. It names the resource (Maximo move) and the action (provides checklist), which is specific enough to distinguish from generic tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling upgrade_plan.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upgrade_plan or ask_maximo. It mentions the phased nature but doesn't state prerequisites or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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