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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a useful interpretation caveat that replacement-review heuristics are not predictions or spending approval. It does not describe pagination or result scope, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 usage condition and then the compared metrics plus caveat. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Annotations and the description together make the tool's purpose and safety profile clear, but the date-range, asset-filtering and pagination behavior are left entirely to inference. For a read-only summary tool with no output schema, that is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The schema has five parameters and 0% description coverage, yet the description does not explain from, until, assetId, page or pageSize. No parameter meaning is added beyond the bare schema names and types.

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 comparison task: recorded repair costs, unknown-cost coverage, lifetime downtime and asset age. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic asset-history or work-order tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

Provides a clear use case: reviewing asset repair costs and missing-cost coverage. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_asset_service_history, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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