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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses single-page semantics, the `next`-cursor pattern with filter preservation, and the WORKORDERS read permission requirement — all things an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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, each doing distinct work: identity, pagination behavior, and permission prerequisite. Front-loaded with the verb+resource and no filler.

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 an 11-parameter filtered-list tool with no output schema and 18% schema coverage, the description should at minimum sketch the available filter dimensions. Pagination and permissions are well handled, but the filtering surface — the main thing an agent needs to call this correctly — is entirely undocumented.

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 only 18% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining filters — yet it mentions none of status, priority, buildingID, portfolioID, orderby, or the completed/lastModified date ranges. An agent must read the raw schema and guess at filter semantics with no compensating text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List Propertyware work orders"), which cleanly separates it from propertyware_get_work_order and propertyware_list_work_order_tasks by implication. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 one concrete usage instruction: paginate with `next` to preserve filters, which is genuinely useful. It never says when to use this list versus propertyware_get_work_order or the task-level sibling, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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