Report what is overdue and what is coming due

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the report is computed from stored next-due dates against today at call time, which is valuable because it implies dynamic results, and it notes the 'Pro feature' access requirement. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, though this is strongly implied by its reporting nature. The disclosure is solid but not complete.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that packs all essential information without fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('due report across every asset') and then enumerates the categories and computation method. There is no redundancy or wasted wording.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains what categories the report includes, how the dates are computed, and the default lookahead. It does not explicitly describe the return format or structure, but given the simplicity of the tool and the lack of an output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter 'within_days' is already documented with 'How far ahead to look, in days. Default 30'. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'the next N days (default 30)', but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool generates a due report across all assets, enumerating overdue items, items due within a window, later items, and unscheduled items. It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('every asset'), and its scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like maintenance_export or maintenance_log without requiring further inspection.

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?

The description conveys when to use it (to get an overview of maintenance due dates) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides the default lookahead of 30 days, which hints at usage, but there is no direct guidance on selecting this over maintenance_export or maintenance_log. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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