get_org_scheduled_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral fact, that results are limited to upcoming/future maintenance rather than historical events, which is useful scope information. However, it says nothing about required org-level permissions, aggregation behavior across member accounts, or volume/limits for a multi-account fan-out call.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a short reinforcement sentence, then two example prompts. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument query tool. The second sentence ('Returns upcoming maintenance affecting accounts in your organization') largely restates the first, costing a point.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers scope (organization-wide) and temporal scope (upcoming) without needing to explain return values. The remaining gap is relational: it does not distinguish itself from the nine other org-scoped siblings, which matters in a crowded namespace.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter surface the description could be expected to explain. Nothing is missing here; the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource (get scheduled changes/maintenance events) and adds an explicit scope qualifier, 'across your AWS Organization,' which is the key axis separating it from the sibling get_scheduled_changes. It never names that sibling outright, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the scope phrase is enough for an agent to place it.

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 only implied through example prompts ('What maintenance is planned across my organization?'), which hint at org-wide maintenance queries. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion or named alternative (e.g., get_scheduled_changes for single-account scope, get_org_service_events for service-level events), leaving the agent to infer routing.

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