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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the default filter set (proposed, confirmed, in-progress) and default ordering (soonest first). It omits pagination/limit behavior and total-count behavior, but that is a minor gap against annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the default-behavior and filter details. No filler, though the fragment style is terse.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage on a 5-param tool, the description should do more. It covers defaults and most filters but leaves limit and date format undocumented and says nothing about the returned visit shape.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies status (expanding the default 'open' into three sub-states) and names company_id and a from/to date range, but leaves 'limit' entirely unexplained and gives no format for from/to, so it only partially compensates.

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 clear verb+resource: listing a partner account's maintenance visits to serviced accounts. The scope is specific enough to be told apart from get_partner_maintenance_overview and list_accounts_due_maintenance_visit, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Describes the default behavior ('open visits by default, soonest first') and the available filter dimensions, which implies when it is useful. However it never says when to prefer it over overlapping siblings like list_maintenance_jobs or list_partner_maintenance_alerts, and gives no exclusions.

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