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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'Max 15 facts' limit, which is a useful behavioral constraint. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

One sentence with three distinct pieces of information: purpose, optional filter, and limit. Every word earns its place; it is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the output type (support/maintenance end dates) and a result limit. It does not clarify whether multiple vendors are returned when no filter is given, but overall it is adequate for its 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% for the single 'vendor' parameter, which already documents 'Optional vendor id or name'. The description's 'Optional vendor filter' adds no new semantic information, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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?

States it provides support/maintenance end dates per ERP vendor, with optional vendor filter. The resource is specific ('support/maintenance end dates') and the scope is clear ('per ERP vendor'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'vendor_facts', the purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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?

Implied usage: use when you need support/maintenance deadlines. It mentions an optional vendor filter but does not explain when to use it vs. not, nor does it reference alternatives or exclusions. Guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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