zabbix_maintenance_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations do not: expired windows are returned by default and the rationale for that default, which explains why the result set may be larger than expected.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the default-behavior justification and routing guidance following in a logical order. The explanation of why expired windows are visible is slightly more verbose than needed, but it earns its place by pre-empting a likely agent surprise.

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?

Covered: purpose, filter semantics, default behavior, and sibling routing, which is sufficient for a read-only list tool with no output schema. It does not describe the truncated-result indicator mentioned in the `limit` schema, a minor omission rather than a blocker.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's note that expired windows are shown by default complements the `active` parameter's semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('List maintenance windows') plus a scope qualifier ('including expired ones'). It is immediately distinguishable from mutating siblings like zabbix_write and zabbix_resolve.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions ('which maintenance windows exist, which hosts are silenced, or whether a window has expired') and explicitly routes mutations to zabbix_write or zabbix_plan_create. Both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use cases are covered with named alternatives.

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