get_maintenance_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that each task includes the recommended frequency and the reason it matters, clarifying the return format. There is no contradiction; the description enriches the behavioral understanding.

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 only two sentences: the first states the purpose and output content, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence is essential, with 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 simple read-only lookup tool with one parameter, no output schema, and supportive annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return content. It is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for appliance_type, listing all supported values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Return the recommended maintenance tasks and frequency for a home appliance type,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_appliance_recall and get_appliance_lifespan by focusing on maintenance tasks and their importance.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a user asks how to maintain an appliance, or asks about a specific maintenance task's importance,' providing clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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