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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious domain context that the annotations cannot convey: returned amounts are bare numbers with no currency, and a prerequisite call is needed to interpret them. Pagination auto-fetch is covered only by the schema, not the description.

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, front-loaded with scope and followed by the currency caveat that actually changes agent behavior. No filler or restated title text.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, a data-interpretation caveat, and relies on the schema for pagination. Missing only a brief note on result shape or scale, which is minor here.

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%, with page, search and per_page all documented in-schema (including the auto-fetch behavior), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('List preventive maintenance templates') and frames the resource's role ('that can be used to create PM schedules'), which separates it from list_pm_schedules. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling it is not, so an agent still infers the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by the listing scope, and there is one concrete workflow rule: fetch organization settings for currency_code before stating an amount. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_pm_schedules or how to use search/page to narrow results.

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