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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds some useful context: results include already-past dates and a key is required. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any error behavior, leaving notable gaps.

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?

The description is concise, with two short sentences and a link. It front-loads the purpose. However, the wording 'Support end dates' is awkward and could be clearer, but there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation. The description does not explain return values, how the names parameter is used, or what happens without a key. For a tool with these gaps, the description is insufficiently complete.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'names' with 0% description coverage, so the description must explain it. The description mentions runtimes but does not explicitly state that 'names' refers to runtime names or define expected array contents. This leaves the parameter meaning ambiguous.

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 the tool provides support end dates for runtimes required by a dependency set, including already-past dates. This is a specific resource and scope, though the verb 'Support' is weak and not as direct as 'List' or 'Check'. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like check_eol by focusing on runtimes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools. The only usage hint is the prerequisite that a key is required and reference to pricing, but no explicit context for choosing this tool or exclusions is provided.

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