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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the required permissions (WorkOrder.View vs WorkOrder.View.Own), the fact that own-access silently narrows results to the actor, and the status semantics distinguishing Completed, Cancelled, and Unknown.

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 the core purpose, then filters, then return shape, then status semantics and permissions. Four dense sentences with little waste, though the status-semantics sentence is arguably detail an agent only needs at interpretation time.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (public GUID, name, description, numeric status, statusName, assigned user). Combined with permission and status caveats, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool; only pagination metadata/total-count behavior is left unstated.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including defaults and the pageSize max. The prose restates asset GUID, text search, and open-only filtering without adding format or behavior detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists work orders in the authorized company') and names the supported filters precisely. It is clear about scope, but it never mentions the sibling uteamup_workorder_search, so an agent must infer which of the two listing/search tools fits a given query.

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?

Usage context is implied through the filter descriptions (asset GUID, text search, open-only) and the permission note, which suggests when a caller gets a narrower result set. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to the alternative uteamup_workorder_search, leaving the choice to inference.

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