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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the scope constraint that this report has no Property column and is portfolio-wide, which is exactly the kind of behavioral caveat an agent needs to avoid misusing it.

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?

Front-loaded with what the report is and its scope caveat, followed by output contents, filters, and example questions. No redundant sentences; the parenthetical report code is compact metadata.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers scope, filters, and content well. The one gap is that two date parameters are undocumented anywhere, leaving the time-window semantics for an agent to guess.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It mentions category/priority/status filters, implies open_only via 'age distribution of open issues', and implies top_n via 'lists the oldest open issues', but says nothing about start_date/end_date or the default of open_only.

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 states a concrete deliverable (work-order/service-issue backlog summary) and names the underlying report and its portfolio-wide scope, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_work_orders list tool. An agent can tell exactly what this produces without opening the schema.

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 'Answers:' block gives explicit question-shaped triggers ('how many open work orders', 'how stale is the backlog', 'oldest unresolved issues') that map well to when to invoke it. It stops short of naming the alternative (get_work_orders) for row-level lookups, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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