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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the exactly-one-of scope constraint, that events are never keyed on individual assets, and that amounts are bare numbers requiring get_organization_settings for currency_code. That is real added context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the resource and its scope model before the filtering and currency caveats. Dense with several clauses, but every sentence carries distinct information; only the trailing currency note is somewhat tangential to listing.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the domain model, valid filters, and the currency caveat an agent needs before presenting amounts. Nothing essential is missing, though return shape hints (e.g., pagination) are left to the 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the mutual-exclusivity rule ('exactly one of asset_type_id or asset_type_group_id') that the schema does not express via anyOf/oneOf, plus confirmation of which fields are filterable. That is meaningful semantics beyond the raw property descriptions.

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+resource ('List facility lifecycle strategy events') and pins down the exact model: condition-triggered maintenance/rehabilitation events keyed on an asset-type scope, never individual assets. This distinguishes it from get_asset_lifecycle_event and list_infrastructure_lifecycle_events by scope semantics rather than by name 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?

Gives clear when-to-use context through the strategy-resolution rule ('an asset resolves its type's own strategy first, else its type group's') and lists the valid filters. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools like get_asset_lifecycle_event or the infrastructure variant, but the domain model it lays out makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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