io_list_maintenance_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond restating a subset of the schema's filters: no pagination behavior, no default limit, no return-shape explanation, and nothing about ordering semantics.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the identity of the resource and the filter dimensions front-loaded. Nothing in the text is redundant filler.

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?

With 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and a fairly subtle 'view' mode, the description is thin: it omits pagination, search, sorting, and the compact/full distinction that materially affect the response. The 100% schema coverage keeps this adequate, but the description itself leaves real gaps for a tool of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema carries all parameter detail (defaults, enums, view semantics, limits). The description only echoes three of the ten filters and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (iOffice maintenance requests) and names the filter dimensions. It clearly reads as the collection-level counterpart to the singular io_get_maintenance_request sibling, though it does not name that sibling 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?

Filtering by status/space/building implies when the tool is useful, so usage is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer io_get_maintenance_request, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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