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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is done. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: amounts are returned as bare numbers with no currency and must be paired with get_organization_settings. That output-interpretation caveat is not derivable from 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?

Two tight sentences: the purpose leads, the currency caveat follows. No filler, no redundancy with the schema or 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 compensates by flagging the currency representation of returned amounts. Pagination is handled by the schema. What remains thin is explicit routing against sibling list/get tools, but for a simple read-only list this is nearly complete.

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%, and all three pagination/search parameters are documented in the schema (including the automatic all-pages behavior). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 templates') and adds scope context ('used to create PM schedules'), which distinguishes it from list_pm_schedules. It does not explicitly name the create/update/delete template siblings, so an agent must still infer the boundary, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool versus get/update/create counterparts, nor any stated prerequisites for listing. The only directive ('call get_organization_settings for currency_code') is a downstream interpretation rule, not tool-selection guidance.

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