list_maintenance_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a list operation. It does not mention pagination behavior, default sorting, authentication/authorization requirements, how the stats_type parameter alters results, or any side effects. The 'raised by the resident' scoping is the only behavioral context provided.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. While it is minimal, it is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and earns its place by clarifying the scope of issues.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It only provides the basic list purpose and does not address filtering semantics, result shape, or the meaning of stats_type in the context of maintenance issues. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 each parameter is already described with types and meaning. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline of 3. The parameters are straightforward (page, items, status, stats_type) and well-documented in the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'maintenance issues/complaints' with a clear scope 'raised by the resident'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issue_categories and get_issue_stats, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where another list_* tool would be more appropriate. The 'raised by the resident' scope offers a slight hint, but it does not frame selection criteria.

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