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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read. Beyond that, the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors not in the schema: amounts are bare numbers requiring a separate currency lookup, and scope matching resolves to the most specific scope. That is meaningful output-interpretation context, though pagination and rate behavior are left to 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the domain model, then filters, then the currency caveat, each carrying distinct value. Slightly dense in the scope-resolution explanation but no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return semantics; it does so by describing how events form a scope's strategy and how amounts should be read. It omits pagination behavior, but the schema already documents automatic all-page fetching.

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 six parameters are already documented in the schema (including page/per_page auto-fetch). The description restates four of the filters without adding format or semantics beyond the enum/pattern constraints already in the schema, so the 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 (List) and resource (lifecycle strategy events), then defines the domain concept precisely: scope-keyed events, not feature-keyed. The phrase 'never on individual features' implicitly separates it from the per-asset lifecycle event siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 usable filters (feature_class, material, event_class, is_active) and gives an explicit workflow step ('call get_organization_settings for currency_code before stating one'). It stops short of stating when-not to use it versus list_asset_lifecycle_events, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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