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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description earns credit by disclosing the response shape (full state, update timeline, affected components), which is meaningful context absent an output schema. It omits error/not-found behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the payload it returns. The trailing REST path is mildly redundant metadata but does not obscure the core statement.

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 simple read-only two-param tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return content the schema cannot, so an agent knows what a successful call yields. Only not-found/error handling is left unspecified, a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both page_id and maintenance_id are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format, linkage, or sourcing detail beyond the structured fields.

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 (Get) and resource (a single scheduled maintenance) scoped by id, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_maintenances and from instatus_get_incident/get_component.

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?

Usage is implied by 'single ... by id' versus the list sibling, but the description never states when to prefer this over instatus_list_maintenances or what to do when the id is unknown. No explicit conditions or exclusions are given.

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