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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it does NOT compute whether a window is active right now, it depends on server local clock and dawom interpretation, and it returns a human-readable description field to avoid LLM misinterpretation. It also discloses the legacy-only route constraint for per-alert mode. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, two modes, legacy constraint, row fields, limitation note, permission, and examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded. The examples at the end are concise and illustrative without being verbose.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns (schedule fields, human-readable description), how to use it in both modes, its limitations (no active-window computation), and its relationship to modern vs legacy alerts. The output schema is absent, but the description compensates by listing the row fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter alert_id is already described in the schema. The description adds meaning by explaining that setting alert_id switches to per-legacy-alert mode and that modern alerts use routing rules instead. This is a meaningful addition beyond the schema, though the schema already covers the basic semantics.

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 clearly states the tool lists maintenance windows (suppression schedules that gate alert dispatch) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining its role in alerting. It also explicitly names two modes (global catalog vs per-legacy-alert) and the exact API endpoints they wrap, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use when a user asks 'why didn't this page me' or 'is this device under maintenance right now'. It also gives clear exclusions: modern alerts should use routing rules, not this per-alert path, and it explicitly says the tool does NOT compute active windows, directing users to alertmond IPC for reliable yes/no. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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