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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: amounts are returned as bare numbers with no currency, and the agent must call get_organization_settings for currency_code before presenting a value. This is a non-obvious data-handling trait not present in annotations or 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the filter enumeration and the currency caveat. It is efficient and well-ordered, though the inline enum lists are somewhat verbose relative to what the schema already carries.

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 7 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the filterable dimensions and flags the currency pitfall. It omits mention of the automatic all-pages fetch behavior and the search parameter, but those are adequately covered by the schema, so the gaps are minor.

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 seven parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description restates the enum values for status/priority/type, which duplicates the schema rather than extending it, and the currency note concerns output handling rather than any input parameter. It adds little meaning on top of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List work orders') and enumerates the filterable facets, so an agent immediately knows this is the read-many counterpart to get_work_order/create_work_order. It does not explicitly name sibling list tools (list_work_order_comments, list_work_order_schedules, list_work_requests), so differentiation is implied by the resource noun rather than stated.

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 description implies usage by listing filter fields ('Filter by status..., priority..., type..., and site'), giving a sense of how to narrow results. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_work_order or the related list_* siblings, nor any exclusion conditions. The currency note is a useful operational instruction but not a when-to-use guideline.

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