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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context the annotations cannot: monetary amounts come back as bare numbers and the agent must call get_organization_settings to obtain currency_code before presenting a figure.

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 with no waste: purpose first, supported filters second, and the non-obvious currency caveat last. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 100% schema coverage, full annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the filters and warns about the currency quirk in returned amounts. Only the differentiation from sibling list tools is left implicit.

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 (page, search, status, site_id, per_page, frequency) is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's mention of status/frequency/site filters mostly restates that, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the 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?

Clear verb+resource ('List preventive maintenance schedules') with the supported filter dimensions named (status, frequency, site). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings list_pm_templates or list_compliance_pm_schedules, which is the only gap.

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 filter axes tell the agent how to narrow results, which implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_pm_schedule for a single schedule or vs list_compliance_pm_schedules. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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