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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: a betterment re-bases depreciation from its own date and never alters the original in-service date, and amounts are bare numbers carrying no currency. That is real added value.

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?

Four sentences, all front-loaded: definition, what each record contains, the depreciation rule, then filters and the currency caveat. Nothing is padding, though the currency sentence could be trimmed slightly.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (capitalized_amount, added_life_years, occurred_on) and the currency caveat. Pagination auto-fetch behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable; the definition is otherwise complete for a read-only list tool.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description repeats the three filterable IDs but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions, and does not mention pagination parameters.

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 (List) and resource (betterments) and then defines the domain concept precisely: capital work extending a facility asset's life, with concrete examples. An agent can distinguish this from list_asset_costs or list_asset_lifecycle_events from the description 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?

It names the three available filters (asset_id, project_id, work_order_id) and cross-references get_organization_settings for currency, which is useful. However, it never states when to prefer this list over get_asset_betterment or the other asset cost/lifecycle list tools, so sibling selection is left to inference.

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