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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the returned payload is ids only, the states included (active, closed, upcoming), and the underlying endpoint GET /maintenances/{statuspage_id}.

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, well front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scoping detail and the follow-up tool are both stated economically.

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, the description compensates by stating the return is ids only and which maintenance states are covered. A minor gap remains around ordering or volume of ids, but an agent has enough to call and use it correctly.

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% for the single statuspage_id parameter, including its default behavior, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate here.

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 and resource ('ids of all active, closed and upcoming maintenance events') and clarifies the scope with '(ids only)', which distinguishes it from the fuller statusio_list_maintenance. It also flags the sibling used to fetch a single record, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with statusio_list_maintenance.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance: use this to enumerate ids, then 'Fetch one with statusio_get_maintenance'. There is no explicit when-not-to-use clause or direct comparison against the other list siblings, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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