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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the currency convention: amounts are bare numbers and require a separate settings call to interpret. That is real behavioral context beyond the schema, though no-not-found or error behavior is disclosed.

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, front-loading the operation and its payload, with the currency caveat appended as a single actionable clause. 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (tasks, resources, linked assets) and flags the currency gotcha. A modest gap remains around behavior when the ID is invalid or missing, but the core need is covered.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents the uuid 'id'. The description adds no syntax or identity guidance for the parameter, meeting only the baseline for a fully-covered single-param 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific PM schedule') and enumerates what is returned (tasks, resources, linked assets). It clearly distinguishes a single-record fetch from the sibling list_pm_schedules, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'specific PM schedule' and the id parameter. The one explicit guideline is procedural (fetch currency_code via get_organization_settings before quoting amounts), which is helpful but is not when-to-use/when-not guidance against alternatives like list_pm_schedules.

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