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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds meaningful context beyond them by stating the required write scope ('Requires work_order_schedules:write scope') and clarifying the create-one-entry behavior. Return/response behavior is not covered, keeping it from a 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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose/scope, the stop_order toggle, and the scope requirement. Front-loaded with the core action and no wasted words.

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 9-parameter create tool with fully documented schema and present annotations, the description covers purpose, the key optional parameter's behavior, and auth scope. It could note the non-idempotent nature, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for stop_order beyond the schema's '1-based stop position in the day plan' by explaining that leaving it unset yields an unordered calendar entry. Other parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Schedule a work order for a technician on a date') and clarifies the scope as 'one entry of a day plan,' which implicitly distinguishes it from create_work_order. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so a full 5 isn't earned, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives conditional usage for one parameter ('leave it unset for an unordered calendar entry'), which is genuinely helpful. However, it never states when to use this tool versus update_work_order_schedule or create_work_order, so tool-level selection guidance is only implied by context.

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