List maintenance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world behaviour, and the description adds real context beyond them: result ordering, the fields returned per task, and the anti-duplication purpose. It does not mention result limits or how the default status filter narrows the list, so it stops short of fully explaining what an agent will actually receive.

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?

One efficiently loaded sentence covering purpose, ordering, output fields, and routing, with the parenthetical examples earning their space. The closing clause is a fragment ("for just what's urgent across everything, what_needs_attention"), which reads awkwardly but is still parseable.

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 two-parameter, no-required-argument read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and why to call it, which is the right level. Only the absence of any note on result size or the default open-only scope keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum values are already spelled out with meanings, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds only the soft hint that the default view excludes finished one-offs; it does not explain how status interacts with the ordering or what itemId values to supply beyond the schema's pointer to search_inventory.

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 concrete resource (maintenance tasks) with examples of what counts (filters, boiler, gutters), the ordering (soonest due first), and the per-row payload (id, item/place, usual assignee). That is enough to distinguish it from what_needs_attention and from generic item listings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives three explicit use cases (view the schedule, get an id for complete_maintenance, check before add_maintenance to avoid duplicates) and names the alternative for the urgent-everything view. The when-not is implicit in that routing, which is normally enough, and the sibling names are precise.

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