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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description needn't repeat it. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in structured fields: the default range of 90 days back to ~1 year ahead. It says nothing about result ordering, limits, or pagination behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the default-range qualifier placed immediately after. Nothing extraneous and no restating of the title.

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?

A simple read-only list tool with three fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, and the description supplies the non-obvious default range. What's missing is minor but real: result volume/pagination expectations and whether default behavior filters by status.

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 defines from, to and the status enum. The description adds only indirect meaning about the from/to defaults; it does not explain override behavior (e.g. what happens if only one bound is supplied) or whether the default status filter excludes cancelled windows.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus resource ("planned maintenance windows"), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling read tool vs_maintenance_get (single window), relying on the name to carry that distinction.

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 reveals the default time window, which tells an agent it can call this with no arguments and what it will get. It gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this list over vs_maintenance_get or how to narrow with status/from/to, so usage is only implied.

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