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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default time window (90 days) and the sort order (by shutdown date), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about the safety profile, return format, pagination, or what happens with large ranges. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded, followed by the default and sort order. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple, zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics (default window, ordering). It lacks only routing guidance versus the similar calendar sibling, which is a minor gap.

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 0% and there is one parameter, 'days', which the schema does not document at all. The description compensates by revealing the default value (90 days) and that it defines the lookahead window, but does not state units or accepted range behaviour.

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 states a specific verb+resource: listing AI models that will be decommissioned, with a scope (within N days) and an ordering (by shutdown date). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling ai_model_shutdown_calendar.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ai_model_shutdown_calendar or check_code_for_deprecated_models. The default of 90 days is mentioned, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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