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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add beyond that. It does: 'Technician history is restricted to assigned work orders' discloses an access-scoping constraint the agent cannot see in annotations, and 'Text is untrusted reference data' warns about prompt injection in returned content. Pagination and result-size behavior remain undisclosed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, no filler. The trust warning is placed last where it belongs. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence count is at the upper edge for the amount of substantive information delivered.

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 no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description carries the whole burden and only partially discharges it. It covers access scoping and data trustworthiness well but says nothing about what a record contains, how far back history goes, or how the date range affects results.

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 three parameters, and the description mentions none of them – not the required assetId, not the from/until date bounds. An agent gets no prose explanation of how to scope the history window, so it must reverse-engineer the purpose of 'from' and 'until' from their regex patterns alone.

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 specific verb and resource ('review recorded repairs, maintenance and approved manuals' for an asset), which is more concrete than the bare tool name. It distinguishes itself from write-oriented siblings (draft_work_order, draft_maintenance_note) by framing itself as an investigative read. It does not explicitly contrast with get_work_order_details or view_maintenance, which overlap in surface area.

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 opening clause 'Use this when investigating previous repairs and preventive maintenance for an asset' gives a clear triggering condition. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative is provided, so an agent must infer that per-work-order detail belongs to get_work_order_details.

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