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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds value beyond them: results carry evidence-based risk indicators, and it warns that criticalOnly only matches assets explicitly tagged Critical, with untagged criticality treated as unknown. It does not describe pagination or default result ordering despite page/pageSize parameters.

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 with no filler; the usage trigger and scope come first and the criticalOnly caveat is placed last as a targeted warning. Tight and front-loaded.

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 8-parameter, entirely undocumented schema with no output schema, the description is too thin: an agent cannot tell the default date window, whether from/until are required, how overdueOnly interacts with criticalOnly, or what a page of results contains. The one caveat it does provide is good but insufficient for this schema.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only explains criticalOnly. It says nothing about from/until, overdueOnly, assetId, locationId, or page/pageSize defaults, leaving most filter semantics to be guessed from property names.

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+resource: finds upcoming or overdue maintenance schedules with risk indicators, which an agent can distinguish from drafting or viewing tools. It never explicitly contrasts itself with view_maintenance or view_operations_dashboard, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when identifying maintenance that needs attention or planning upcoming work'), giving clear context for invocation. It names no alternatives and gives no when-not conditions (e.g. use view_maintenance for a single record), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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