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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only lookup by saying 'return', and notes the qualifying outcome is conditional ('may qualify'), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose the data source, update cadence, or whether eligibility is a definitive determination or an estimate.

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?

One sentence conveys the input, the three distinct outputs, and the conditional nature of the discount qualification. There is no filler, and the most important output is front-loaded.

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 lookup with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to know before calling: the input and the expected return values. No important context 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 schema already fully documents the only parameter, 'version', including accepted values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that it takes a Dynamics NAV version, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('return') and a specific resource ('Dynamics NAV version' support and licensing dates), and lists the exact outputs: support end date, end-of-sale date, and Bridge to Cloud 3 eligibility. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like estimate_bridge_to_cloud_savings or check_compliance_deadlines.

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 'Given a Dynamics NAV version' establishes the clear input condition under which the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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