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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavior: the response is large, the predicted next-due date is filled only when nothing is scheduled, and health.next_scheduled_job carries is_predicted=true with null id. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 rich but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the full scope, then clarifies the large response and predicted-field behavior, then routes to the alternative. No fluff.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers all necessary operational knowledge: what data to expect, the large response caveat, the predicted-due-date semantics, and the fleet-wide alternative. An agent can call it correctly with no missing information.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting include_active_job_detail is off by default and pointing to get_maintenance_job for the same detail, which helps the agent decide when to set it. This pushes it to 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') with a clear resource ('printer maintenance profile') and enumerates exactly what it returns (status, health, stats, last 50 jobs, per-task completion, spare parts). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the fleet-wide sibling by pointing to get_maintenance_status_map.

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?

It directly states when to use it ('ask for one printer at a time') and when not ('use get_maintenance_status_map for fleet-wide questions'), naming the alternative. This gives an agent explicit routing guidance.

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