maintenance_due

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses aggregation and ordering ('one list, worst first') and cross-make scope, but omits whether the operation is read-only, permissions required, side effects, and failure or empty-result behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key output ordering is easy to spot. It is almost too compressed, but it is not padded or structurally confusing.

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 three-parameter tool with a nested object and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. It communicates the basic result shape but leaves input semantics, usage context, and non-happy-path behavior unexplained.

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 0%, so the description should explain the three parameters. It loosely maps 'parts' and 'machines' to parts/printer_names but gives no type, content, or filtering semantics, and completely ignores the nested recent_faults object.

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 identifies the resource and output: parts due per machine, returned as a prioritized single list across mixed makes. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name or distinguish the close sibling get_maintenance_prediction, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It implies a maintenance-query use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. With siblings such as get_maintenance_prediction and check_printer_health, the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to infer selection.

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