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 genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the returned fields (lifecycle status, EOL date, days remaining/past, latest release) and the semantics of eol_date_source with its five provenance values and associated source URL. No contradiction 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?

Three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence packs the return-field disclosure, including the inline eol_date_source enum explanation, which earns its length given the value it adds. Nothing repeats what the annotations already state.

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?

With only two well-documented parameters, strong safety annotations, and an output schema that can carry return-value structure, the bar for the description is modest. It covers the core use case and data provenance semantics. The main gap is not pointing toward sibling tools (e.g., list_products for valid slugs, get_upcoming_eol for future dates), which would make routing fully self-contained.

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%, with both parameters already documented via concrete examples ('postgresql', 'nodejs', 'ubuntu' for product; '14', '18', '20.04' for version), so the baseline is 3. The description maps parameters to the supported question form ('X version Y') but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Check whether a specific version of a software product is end-of-life (EOL).' This clearly separates it from siblings like get_upcoming_eol (future dates) and get_product_lifecycle (broader lifecycle scope). The closing 'Use this for...' phrasing reinforces exactly what question the tool answers.

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 provides an explicit invocation context: 'Use this for "is X version Y still supported?" questions.' This is concrete guidance on when to call the tool. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so the routing guidance stops short of being fully explicit.

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