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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: returned amounts are bare numbers with no currency, requiring a companion lookup. That is a real cross-tool dependency an agent could not infer from 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 the purpose, then filters, then the non-obvious currency caveat. No filler or repetition 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully warns about bare-number amounts, which is exactly the kind of return-value gotcha it needs to carry. Pagination behavior is left to the schema, so the description is complete enough without being exhaustive.

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 every parameter is already documented with enums and defaults; baseline is 3. The description summarizes the filterable fields but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, and the currency note concerns output values rather than 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 and resource ('List asset replacement plans') plus its domain ('lifecycle/capital planning'), which helps an agent place it. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_asset_replacement_plan or list_asset_lifecycle_events, so the sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 concrete filtering context ('Filter by asset, status, priority, or planned year') and a real workflow directive: call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating an amount. It stops short of saying when to prefer this list tool over get_asset_replacement_plan or the bulk/update siblings.

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