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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: amounts are bare numbers with no currency, so the agent must call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating a figure. That is real behavioral value beyond the annotations and beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then the high-value currency caveat. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, filter surface, and the currency pitfall. It omits ordering/default behavior details, but the schema already documents pagination, so the gap is minor.

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%, including enum values for status and priority, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's filter list mirrors the schema without adding format, defaults, or semantics beyond it (e.g., it doesn't explain the page/per_page auto-fetch interaction). Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List asset replacement plans') and scopes the domain as lifecycle/capital planning, so the agent knows both what is returned and why it exists. The 'List' vs sibling 'get_asset_replacement_plan' distinction is immediately inferable from the verb.

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?

Names the four filterable dimensions (asset, status, priority, planned year), which tells the agent when this tool is the right fit, and points to get_organization_settings for currency resolution. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a direct pointer to get_asset_replacement_plan for single-record lookups.

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