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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing what the tool returns, including the note about vendor successors being published only for edge appliances. 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The opening clause states the purpose immediately, the list of outputs is dense but organized, and the usage guidance is a single conditional sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with only two simple parameters, a rich output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent when to use it and what it returns. Minor gap: it does not state what happens when the optional version parameter is omitted, but the output schema and schema description mitigate this.

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 both product and version are already well defined in the schema. The description references 'current version' and implies using the version parameter but adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond that. 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 and resource: 'Where to move a product version' and enumerates the concrete outputs (support status, score, recommended target, vendor successor). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like check_eol and get_upcoming_eol by focusing on the upgrade destination rather than the EOL check itself.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use after check_eol says a version is EOL.' This provides a clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other situations, so it falls 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.