List asset betterments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds meaningful domain behavior beyond them: a betterment re-bases depreciation from its own date and never changes the original in-service date. It stops short of return-shape or pagination behavior, though the currency caveat is a genuinely useful operational note.

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?

Front-loads the definition, then attributes recorded fields, then filters, then the currency caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming capitalized_amount, added_life_years, and occurred_on. Combined with filter guidance and the cross-tool currency instruction, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including the filters named in the description. The description merely restates the filter fields (asset_id, project_id, work_order_id) without adding format or syntax detail, so it earns the 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('betterments'), then defines the resource concretely with domain examples ('elevator modernization', 'boiler retube'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_asset_costs or list_assets without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear filtering context (filter by asset_id, project_id or work_order_id) and routes to a sibling (get_organization_settings for currency_code). It lacks explicit when-to-use versus list_asset_costs or when-not-to-use guidance, but the operational context is solid.

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