list_maintenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context beyond that: identifier null means inventory-wide query, and status values map to scheduled/completed/both. No contradiction.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with verb/object, parameter names in backticks, and no filler. Every sentence adds necessary scope or filter context.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description covers selection scope, identifier formats, and status semantics. No critical gaps remain.

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 has zero parameter descriptions, so the description carries full burden. It explains identifier accepts assetId/alias/name or null for all, and status meanings for scheduled/completed/both, covering both parameters.

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?

Description opens with 'List maintenance entries', naming the exact resource and adding scope (one item vs whole inventory). It clearly distinguishes from maintenance mutation tools (log/set/delete_maintenance) and other list tools.

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?

States when to use with an identifier for one item or without for the whole inventory, and explains status filtering options. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed.

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