List asset maintenances

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

The annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the paginated-list nature and filterable fields, but does not discuss pagination semantics (all/limit/offset, truncation behavior) that would be useful context beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint and list purpose followed by the filter hint. No wasted words, though the raw HTTP path is slightly implementation-flavored rather than task-oriented.

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?

Given six optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is adequate but thin: it omits any mention of pagination controls (all/limit/offset) and the unverified nature of supplier_id and asset_maintenance_type filters, both of which are only in the schema. It is not wrong, but it leaves important operational context for the agent to discover elsewhere.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents limit, offset, all, and the filter params in detail. The description only names three of the six filters and adds no syntax or behavioral meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (list) and resource (asset maintenances), plus the underlying GET /maintenances endpoint and pagination/filter capability. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling maintenance tools (e.g., snipeit_gen_maintenances, snipeit_create_maintenance), leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'paginated list' and 'optionally filter' suggest a read/query operation, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over snipeit_gen_maintenances, snipeit_raw_request, or snipeit_create_maintenance. No exclusions or preconditions are given.

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