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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns structured rows, lists the row fields, and names the source, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, what happens with no filters, or whether there are pagination or performance considerations.

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 three efficient sentences, front-loading the core data delivered and then adding scoping and source context. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

The description is sufficiently complete for a simple optional-filter lookup: it names the returned fields, states optional scoping, and identifies the data source. It does not explain default behavior with no parameters or output ordering, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema already fully explains both parameters. The description adds only the general statement that scoping is optional, which does not materially extend the schema's meaning.

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 identifies the resource: end-of-support, Extended Support, and Dual Support dates for Maximo and MAS, and enumerates the fields returned. It is narrower than the broad 'support_lifecycle' sibling, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling, so it misses full differentiation.

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 implies usage by noting optional scoping by product or version and referencing the same data as a known web page. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like support_lifecycle or deprecation_register, nor does it give any exclusions or alternatives.

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