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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/closed-world annotations by disclosing rate limits per tier, the honest handling of unmatched components (listed, not guessed), version-to-release-family resolution, and exactly what happens when an SBOM exceeds the cap. These are the operational facts an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and keeps every sentence information-bearing (formats, matching, version resolution, tier limits). The 'Pass the SBOM as a JSON string or object' line mildly duplicates the schema, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and the description still covers input formats, matching semantics, truncation behavior, and quota limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the note that the tier cap applies before max_items. The description largely restates the sbom parameter ('JSON string or object') and adds no new semantics for max_items, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (audit/check) and resource (CycloneDX or SPDX JSON SBOM), plus what the tool does with it: map components to tracked products and score EOL risk. No sibling takes an SBOM document as input, so the resource alone separates it from check_eol and scan_stack.

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 supplies usage-relevant constraints (tier caps of 5/25/50, truncation behavior on large SBOMs) but never states when to choose this tool over check_eol or scan_stack, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied by the input type rather than explained.

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