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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot supply: amounts are bare numbers with no currency attached, and the required follow-up to resolve currency_code. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, though the schema covers that.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the content summary is front-loaded before the caveat. The currency note is a non-obvious gotcha that earns its place rather than padding the definition.

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 does the heavy lifting by naming the aggregate fields returned and warning that monetary values lack currency context, plus pointing at the tool that supplies it. A brief note on pagination/ordering would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% (page, year, month, per_page all documented, including defaults and the automatic all-pages fetch), so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List monthly dashboard snapshots") and enumerates the payload contents (asset counts, condition scores, work order metrics, CRV totals), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_dashboard_snapshot or get_dashboard_summary, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

The description gives one actionable usage rule — call get_organization_settings for currency_code before quoting an amount — which is a genuine cross-tool workflow hint. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this list tool over get_dashboard_snapshot/get_dashboard_summary, nor any exclusions.

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