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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the mutation ('mark done'), the recurrence side effect (next service created repeat_months after completion), the default date basis, and that the next record is returned. It does not cover irreversibility, idempotency, or permission details beyond the vague '(owner or office)'.

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?

Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence handles conditional recurrence behavior without wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, though the description helpfully mentions 'next'. For a mutation with recurrence and no annotations, it covers the essential behavior, but access scope ('owner or office') remains vague and error conditions are unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains done_on clearly: defaults to today in the shop's time zone and determines the recurrence anchor. However, service_due_id is only implied by 'a service due date' and gets no further explanation.

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: 'Mark a service due date done'. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as services_updateDue, services_cancelDue, and services_listDue.

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 use when a service has been completed, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over services_updateDue or services_cancelDue. The context is adequate but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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