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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, and the description adds context by stating it modifies live status-page data and can notify subscribers. This goes beyond the annotation to explain the impact and side effects, though it could explicitly mention irreversibility or permission requirements.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main action and then lists key parameters. It is efficient but could be slightly shorter or more structured. No wasted words, but the parameter list is somewhat dense.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key parameters, and that it returns the created maintenance. It mentions the API endpoint. It does not explain default behavior for omitted parameters or detailed interaction between parameters, but it is sufficient for selection.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing key parameters (name, message, components, statuses, etc.) and grouping them (e.g., 'per-component impact via statuses'). It clarifies that name is required and that other parameters are optional.

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 creates a new scheduled maintenance, using the verb 'CREATES' and specifying 'scheduled maintenance'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like instatus_create_incident and instatus_list_maintenances by focusing on maintenance creation.

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 implicitly tells when to use (to create a scheduled maintenance) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like updating or deleting maintenance. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites beyond required parameters.

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