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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true), but the description goes substantially beyond them: it specifies what is left behind (listed under past as a record), what stops (holding paging), what does not happen (subscribers are not notified of cancellation), and the confirmation/prompt behavior. That is rich behavioral context that the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action, follows with consequences, the alternative route, confirmation semantics, and an annotation echo, with zero filler. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

Covers action, side effects, record retention, notification behavior, confirmation, auth scope, and the sibling alternative. An output schema exists so return values need not be described. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the id (including its source from list_maintenance). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 (cancel) and resource (maintenance window), and disambiguates from the semantically adjacent sibling update_maintenance by naming it with a concrete alternative behavior. An agent can tell this apart from update_maintenance and get_maintenance without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'To stop a running window early and keep it as completed work, use update_maintenance with end_now instead.' This is a textbook when-to-use-this-vs-that directive.

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