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

With all annotations set to false and no schema descriptions, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a key side effect (decrementing spare-part stock) and explicitly states what the tool does not do. It doesn't cover reversibility or custom_fields behavior, but the most critical side effect is disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: core action first, then the exclusion and alternative, then the conditional spare-part rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core call and the trickiest spare-part condition, but with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the custom_fields parameter remains undefined. An agent would have to guess what strings belong there, leaving a notable gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the relationship between selected_spare_part_id and skip_spare_part, and the meaning of task_id is inferable, but custom_fields is entirely unexplained. This is partial compensation for a 4-parameter schema.

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 action and resource ('tick one task off a maintenance job') and explicitly distinguishes itself from complete_maintenance_job by clarifying what it does NOT do. This makes it easy to tell apart from sibling tools without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use complete_maintenance_job once all tasks are done, and for spare-part-tied tasks pass either selected_spare_part_id or skip_spare_part true. It clearly routes the agent to the right alternative and provides conditional usage rules.

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