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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the classification output (active, nearing EOL, unsupported), but does not disclose details like data sources, thresholds, or return format.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key context.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how parameters affect the result. It does not explain the meaning of the boolean and integer parameters, nor the output structure, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'distro' and 'release' to 'Linux distribution release', but fails to explain 'fail_within_days' and 'allow_security_support'. The term 'CI policy' hints at their role but does not clarify their specific semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('Linux distribution release') with clear outcome categories (active, nearing EOL, unsupported) and context ('under a CI policy'), making its purpose distinct from siblings like get_distro_lifecycle or compare_distro_releases.

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 phrase 'under a CI policy' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer the context.

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