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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: open_only defaults to open orders, and setting open_only=False both includes closed orders and returns an average open→close turnaround stat. It does not mention pagination or the meaning of 'limit'.

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 purpose, then disambiguation, data source, behavior, filters, and example queries — a logical structure. Slightly long, and the filter-list sentence partially restates parameter names already visible in the schema, but nothing is egregiously wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For an 8-param read-only query tool, the description supplies purpose, disambiguation, filter scope, and the key open_only behavior — sufficient for correct invocation.

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 8 params, so the description carries real weight — it explains open_only's default semantics and turnaround side-effect, and enumerates the filter dimensions (property, category, status, priority, opened-date window). However it omits date format for start_date/end_date, valid status/category values, and the role of limit, leaving several params under-specified.

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 resource ('Service Manager work orders / maintenance issues across EVERY category') drawn from a named data source (/ServiceManagerIssues). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_resident_concerns, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('not just resident complaints — use get_resident_concerns for those'). Adds concrete example questions ('what work orders are open', 'maintenance turnaround at <property>') that map user intents to this tool.

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