io_get_maintenance_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lighter burden, but it adds essentially nothing beyond them. It says nothing about not-found/error behavior, permission requirements, or what 'by ID' means when the ID is unknown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words; the retrieval scope is stated immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the usage detail scored elsewhere.

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 single-record read with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema to explain, the description covers the essentials. Only minor gaps remain (error/not-found handling), which is acceptable at this complexity level.

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% and the 'view' parameter already carries a very detailed description of compact vs full semantics. The description only echoes the id parameter ('by ID') and adds no syntax, format, or default guidance 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?

The description gives a specific verb (Get) and resource (iOffice maintenance request) with the scope qualifier 'a single ... by ID'. This distinguishes it from io_list_maintenance_requests and the create/update/accept/start/complete/archive siblings, though the distinction is implied by 'single' rather than stated explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the list alternative, and no stated preconditions beyond the implicit need for an ID. The agent must infer that this is the lookup path once it already holds a request ID.

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