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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds context by specifying the scope (amortizable works) and the detailed return fields. It does not describe pagination or edge cases, but the read-only nature is well covered by annotations and further clarified by the description.

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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the action and then detail the return fields. Every word adds value, with no repetition of schema information or fluff.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does by listing key fields. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or error conditions, but given the simple nature of a list tool with one optional filter, it is largely complete.

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 one parameter (property_id) with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining it is an optional filter by property ('filtre optionnel par bien'), giving the parameter purpose and optionality. It does not go deeper into format or edge cases, but for a single optional parameter this is sufficient.

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 clearly states it lists depreciable property works with an optional property filter, and enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_expenses and list_furniture.

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 description implies usage for listing property works, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Context from sibling tools (create_property_work, update_property_work) makes the use case reasonably clear, but explicit guidance is missing.

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