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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by naming the data source (endoflife.date, 470+ products) and the exact output contents per cycle, including verdict, latest patch, LTS flag, and days to EOL. 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and output, then immediately gives practical usage guidance with concrete examples.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, output fields, supported product categories, and required task_context parameter. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with sibling tools or noting error behavior, but nothing essential 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, documenting product, cycle, and task_context with examples and constraints. The description adds some useful product examples and explains that task_context tunes the result, but it does not substantially expand on what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning support and end-of-life dates for runtimes, OSes, databases, and frameworks, and enumerates the output details (verdict, latest patch, LTS flag, days to EOL). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like deps_audit or package_health, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

The description gives concrete 'Use when' scenarios: deciding which Node, Python, Ubuntu, PostgreSQL, Java, Django version to target, or checking whether a deployed version is still safe. It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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