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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so safety is largely covered structurally; the description adds the required auth scope and the hierarchical-dependency behavior that would otherwise be discovered only by failure. It does not state what happens on an invalid/mismatched ID combination or what the call returns.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the auth gate, then the 'IMPORTANT' constraint. The hierarchy sentence duplicates schema text, which costs it a point, but there is no filler.

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?

Annotations cover the mutation profile, the schema fully documents all 10 params, and the description supplies the dependence ordering an agent cannot infer from field-level docs alone. Missing only a note on the created object's return shape, which is less critical without an output schema.

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 each UUID field already documents its resolver tool, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's hierarchy narration largely restates the schema ('resolve first via list_sites', 'resolve second via list_buildings'), adding emphasis but little new semantic meaning.

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 new work request'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near siblings such as create_work_order or bulk_create, so an agent must infer which creation path applies.

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 (work_requests:write scope) and a mandatory resolution sequence (list_sites → list_buildings → list_locations), which is genuine when/how guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, e.g. when to prefer create_work_order instead.

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