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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: creation branches on the acting user's approval preference (immediate work order vs proposal for review), and it notes 'ordinary cost approval remains'. Idempotency is reinforced with the required-UUID constraint. It doesn't describe the response or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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-loads the usage trigger, then states the branching behavior and scope exclusions. Dense but efficient; the closing exclusions sentence is slightly compressed but earns its place by preventing misuse.

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?

The workflow/approval branching is well covered and annotations handle the safety profile, but with 11 parameters at 0% documentation and no output schema, key inputs like expectedApprovalRequired and expectedCostCents are left opaque. Adequate on behavior, deficient on parameters.

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 coverage is 0% across 11 parameters. The description only illuminates idempotencyKey (required UUID) and implicitly equipmentId; it says nothing about title, rationale, priority, category, assignedTo, appointmentDate, expectedCostCents, or expectedApprovalRequired. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: 'recording a new equipment issue' and creating an 'authorized work order' vs a 'proposal for review'. This clearly distinguishes it from the update sibling by emphasizing a NEW work order. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

'Use this when recording a new equipment issue' gives a clear triggering condition, and the description scopes out unrelated actions ('no closure, dispatch or equipment control'). It stops short of naming explicit alternatives such as draft_work_order_update for modifications.

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