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

The annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds behavioral context by describing the 0-100 score, the four-factor breakdown, and that omitting version scores the most recently end-of-lifed release.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the core purpose and output, the second covers a key optional behavior, and the third states the intended use case.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it explains what the score represents, the output range, the factor breakdown, the version-omission behavior, and when to use the tool. No critical context for invoking 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the omit-for-highest-risk behavior. The description adds a little nuance ('most recently end-of-lifed') but mostly restates what the input schema already says, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource (the proprietary EOL Risk Score 0-100), and the composite four-factor breakdown. It is clearly distinct from siblings like check_eol or get_kev_exposure, which address individual components rather than a composite risk score.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to quantify how dangerous it is to keep running something.' It also clarifies the optional-version behavior. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use it or point to alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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