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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the required write scope ('asset_replacement_plans:write'), which is genuinely useful auth context beyond annotations, but says nothing about what happens on duplicate creation or failure behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the permission requirement. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 7-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and required scope but omits any return-value expectations, duplicate-handling, or failure behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent might need.

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% and all seven parameters (asset_id, planned_replacement_year, status, priority, estimated_cost, funding_source, notes) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 ('Create') and resource ('asset replacement plan'), clearly distinct from the sibling create_asset, update_asset_replacement_plan, and delete_asset_replacement_plan. However it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives the way a 5 would, relying on the unique resource name alone.

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?

No when-to-use context, prerequisites, or pointers to related tools (e.g., use update_asset_replacement_plan to modify an existing plan). The scope requirement is a permission note, not usage guidance about when this tool applies.

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