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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: only interval-based tasks are considered, and machine-counted, habit-driven, and maker-discouraged tasks never appear — a meaningful scoping rule an agent could not guess.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage context and then item-level semantics. Three sentences with little waste, though the final sentence overlaps with what the output schema presumably documents.

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 safety fully covered by annotations, a single enum parameter, and an output schema, the description supplies the pieces the structured fields cannot: ordering, inclusion/exclusion rules, and the provenance of each interval (user, maker, or ShotPulled default). Complete enough for correct invocation.

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% and the single enum parameter carries its own explanation (due = due/overdue and not muted; all = every task, muted last). The description never references the status parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 query over a specific resource — what maintenance is due across the user's current grinders and machines — plus output ordering (most urgent first). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like set_maintenance_schedule, log_maintenance, and get_maintenance_guides, which write or reference guidance rather than report current status.

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?

"Use it for 'is anything due?'" gives a concrete triggering question, and the exclusion rules clarify what the answer will and will not contain. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g. get_maintenance_guides for how-to, log_maintenance for recording work), so the agent must infer when another sibling is the better call.

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