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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds the auth requirement ('Requires asset_lifecycle_events:write scope') plus the conceptual scoping rule that events never attach to individual assets. It does not describe error/validation behavior, but the added auth and scope semantics go beyond the annotations.

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-loaded with the core action and the scope rule, then rationale and prerequisites. Dense and largely waste-free, though the illustrative list ('roof recoats, boiler retubes, overhauls') is padding an agent does not strictly need.

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 17-parameter creation tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers the domain model (scope attachment, resolution order), the auth scope, and the prerequisites. Parameter-level detail is fully carried by the schema, so nothing essential is missing, though return/idempotency behavior is left unstated.

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 the schema already documents all 17 parameters including the exactly-one-of scope constraint and the conditional impact fields. The description restates the scope exclusivity and resolution order but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the structured fields, so 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 and resource ('Create a facility lifecycle strategy event') and immediately disambiguates what it is not: an event attached to assets or to replacement. An agent can distinguish this from create_asset_replacement_plan or create_infrastructure_lifecycle_event without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it and what to model instead ('replacement is NOT an event... model the interventions BEFORE replacement'), and prescribes prerequisites: resolve type ids with list_asset_types / list_asset_type_groups and list existing events first to reuse a scope.

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