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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: per-plan item quotas (5/25/50) and the overflow behavior where excess items are returned as not checked with a note. That quota and truncation disclosure is exactly the context an agent needs before batching.

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?

Four sentences, no filler: capability first, exclusions next, limits last. Each sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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 an output schema present there is no need to explain return values, yet the description still names the EOL Risk Score. Quotas, the sibling alternative, and overflow semantics are all covered, leaving no gap an agent would need to guess at.

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% and the nested item/version fields are already documented. The description still adds meaning by framing items as stack components parsed from package.json or Dockerfile and restating that versions are optional, which slightly exceeds the baseline for a fully covered single parameter.

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+resource+scope: audit a whole stack at once, returning an EOL Risk Score per item. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_sbom for CycloneDX/SPDX documents, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 a clear trigger (a list of products parsed from package.json/Dockerfile) and names the alternative for structured SBOM documents. It stops short of clarifying the single-item case versus check_eol, leaving that boundary to inference.

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