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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds two concrete consequences the annotations cannot express: comments 'may be visible to other users with task access' and repeat calls produce duplicates. What is still missing is any mention of required permissions or the response shape, so it falls short of a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the operation type plus core action are front-loaded before the visibility and duplicate caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a 3-parameter write with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side-effect visibility, and duplicate behavior, which is the critical context. It stops short of stating permissions requirements or what the call returns (e.g., a new comment ID), leaving a small gap given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is a middling 67%: both ID parameters carry the numeric-ID/64-bit precision note and pattern, but the 'text' parameter has only length constraints and no description. The description contributes nothing about any parameter, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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 verb and resource — 'Add a comment to an existing work order task' — and the 'WRITE:' prefix immediately signals the operation class. It does not name any sibling or state why it is distinct from them, but among the listed siblings (getters and listers plus create_work_order_task) there is no overlapping tool, so ambiguity is low.

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 is implied by 'existing work order task', which conveys the precondition that the task must already exist. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to an alternative (e.g., where to go to create the task first or to read comments).

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