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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable context about the output containing window ids and the 'across all scopes' behavior, which goes beyond the structured metadata. No contradiction with 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 two sentences, tightly packed with relevant details: purpose, scope, output hint, parameter filter, and cross-reference to the management tool. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description provides a useful hint about the returned ids and their purpose. It also clarifies scope behavior (across all scopes) and the activeOnly filter. It could have mentioned other output fields, but for a list tool this is sufficient to guide correct usage.

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?

Both parameters have full descriptions in the schema (projectId and activeOnly), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only a general note about requiring project context, but does not significantly enhance the parameter-level understanding already present.

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 of a project across all scopes, and explicitly mentions the returned window ids are needed for cancellation. It differentiates itself from the sibling manage_maintenance_window tool by focusing on browsing and id lookup.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to browse windows or find an id; to plan or cancel one use manage_maintenance_window,' which provides direct guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative. It also notes the requirement for project context and the activeOnly filter for current windows.

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