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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful runtime behavior: pagination defaults, max page size, and the presence of age/status/reporter fields in results. 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads purpose and output fields, the second handles differentiation and pagination. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, output fields, sibling differentiation, and pagination. It doesn't explicitly describe filtering/sorting, but those are fully documented in the input schema, and the field list gives enough sense of the response shape despite no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces page_size default/max and page advancement, but it doesn't add new semantic meaning for filters, search, or sorting beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('reported printer problems') with the exact fields returned. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_maintenance_dashboard, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 names the alternative get_maintenance_dashboard and states the condition for choosing this tool: when you need more than an open-problem count. It also gives concrete pagination guidance (default 10 per page, raise page_size or advance page).

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