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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description goes further by disclosing default look-ahead (90 days), sorting by date, the every-version scope, and the recent_past_days behavior for versions already EOL. This is rich behavioral context that helps an agent predict results.

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 no filler: plain-language summary, precise behavioral details, and a concrete use case. The most important scope/behavior is front-loaded.

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 a complete input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adds the missing context: when to use it, scope, defaults, sorting, and the optional past-EOL window. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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%, so each parameter (days, products, recent_past_days) is already documented. The description restates defaults and options but adds no meaning beyond the schema, keeping this at the baseline.

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 names a specific resource (tracked versions) and action (returns those whose EOL date falls within a window), and clarifies scope with 'every tracked version' and optional product filtering. The phrase 'what in our stack expires this quarter?' makes the aggregate calendar use distinct from singular sibling tools like check_eol.

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 for ... what in our stack expires this quarter?') that tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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