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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the account-level feature requirement that gates whether the call succeeds, and the shape of what is returned. It omits pagination behavior despite exposing page/limit parameters.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and return payload, with the applicability caveat and the underlying API path trailing. No filler or redundancy.

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 listing with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient – it tells the agent what a window contains and the account prerequisite. The only mild gap is the absence of any note on pagination or result volume, which matters for a list endpoint.

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 all three parameters (page, limit, state) are already documented, including the default and the enum. The description adds no syntax or filtering nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('List maintenance windows') and immediately clarifies the domain concept as 'scheduled alert silences', then enumerates the fields returned (start/end, timezone, repeat interval, state, covered checks/tags). This clearly distinguishes it from the singular statuscake_get_maintenance_window and the create/update siblings.

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?

Provides an explicit applicability precondition ('Only works on accounts using the newer maintenance-windows feature'), which tells the agent when this tool will fail. It does not, however, route the agent to alternatives (e.g., get_maintenance_window for a single window by ID), so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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