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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit for disclosing a real cross-tool dependency: amounts come back as bare numbers, so get_organization_settings must be consulted for currency_code before stating a value. That is genuine behavioral context not present in any structured field.

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, purpose front-loaded, then filters, then the currency caveat. Every clause carries information and none is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for return expectations; the currency warning partially covers this by flagging how monetary fields are returned. Pagination handling is already in the schema, so nothing critical is missing, though no note about result shape or ordering is given.

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. The description's mention of status/frequency/site filtering merely restates what the schema provides, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. 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 preventive maintenance schedules') and enumerates the filter dimensions. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as list_compliance_pm_schedules or list_pm_templates, leaving the agent to infer which PM collection it returns.

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?

'Filter by status, frequency, or site' gives implied usage context for narrowing results, but no when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance and no exclusions are stated. The agent gets a hint about filtering but nothing about routing between the several PM-related list/get tools.

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