GET /maintenances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on pagination defaults, what search matches, or what a maintenance record contains. The only extra sentence is provenance metadata ("Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation").

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, front-loaded with the operation and resource. The second sentence is low-value generator provenance, but the whole thing is far from bloated.

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 read tool with fully specified params and annotations, the core is covered, but the sibling list contains five or more maintenances endpoints with indistinguishable names. Without any disambiguation, an agent cannot reliably pick this tool, which is the main missing piece.

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 sort, limit, order, offset, search, and asset_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no clarification (e.g., which fields sort/search accept, or that asset_id scopes results to one asset), 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List asset maintenances"), so the agent knows it is a read of maintenance records. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as snipeit_list_maintenances, snipeit_gen_maintenances_1, and snipeit_gen_maintenances_copy, which all appear to hit the same resource.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the four sibling maintenance tools, and no statement of prerequisites or alternatives. The agent is left to guess whether to call this one, snipeit_list_maintenances, or one of the _copy variants.

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