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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It explicitly states that next_due and interval_days are mutually exclusive, that a repair setting no schedule takes neither, and that a future work date is refused. This gives an agent concrete behavioral constraints beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then packs the essential constraints into the remaining clauses. Every sentence earns its place and the structure makes the rules easy to scan.

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?

Given the parameter count, high schema coverage, and absence of annotations, the description covers the important operational rules sufficiently. It does not mention return values or permissions, but for a simple log-creation tool with a rich schema, the description plus schema is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some value beyond the schema by stating the 'never both' interaction and, more usefully, the edge case that a repair with no schedule takes neither field. It also reinforces that cost is in whole cents. Overall, it adds a small but meaningful layer of parameter context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Log work done on an asset', then enumerates the exact data captured. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like maintenance_due, maintenance_export, and asset_add, which serve different purposes.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over siblings such as maintenance_due or maintenance_export. There are no stated exclusions or conditions like 'use this after finishing work' or 'for viewing due dates, use maintenance_due instead'.

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