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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the required 'compliance:write' scope (an authorization requirement) and the downstream effect on compliance status. It doesn't discuss duplicate-creation behavior implied by idempotentHint=false, keeping it just below 5.

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 tight sentences that front-load the purpose, then prerequisites and required params. Every clause 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?

For a mutation tool with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, scope, prerequisites, and required inputs. The remaining minor gaps (e.g., what happens on repeat calls, confirmatory return) are largely covered by annotations, so it is nearly complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3. The description adds procedural meaning to the two id parameters by instructing the agent to resolve them via list_compliance_items and list_pm_schedules, and reconfirms the required trio, which is more than the schema alone conveys about usage.

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 ('Link a PM schedule to a compliance item') and adds the operational consequence ('completing the schedule keeps the item compliant'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_pm_schedule or create_compliance_item.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite workflow ('Resolve both ids first with list_compliance_items and list_pm_schedules') and the required scope, which is clear context for when and how to call it. It stops short of naming an explicit when-not or alternative linking tool, so it doesn't reach the top bar.

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