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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that three distinct data points come back (support end, end-of-sale, discount eligibility), but says nothing about data currency, whether the version table is exhaustive, or what is returned for an unknown version.

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, front-loaded with the input and then the three outputs in a logical order. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields well enough to call it correctly and interpret results. Minor remaining gap: behavior on an unsupported or unrecognized version string is unstated.

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 100% and the version property already enumerates the accepted values (2009, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018). The description's 'Given a Dynamics NAV version' restates the schema without adding format, case, or fallback semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('return') tied to three concrete return values: support end date, end-of-sale date for NAV licensing, and Bridge to Cloud 3 eligibility. That makes the tool distinguishable from siblings like estimate_bridge_to_cloud_savings (which quantifies savings) and estimate_migration, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Given a Dynamics NAV version' – the agent can infer this is a per-version status lookup, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over estimate_bridge_to_cloud_savings or check_compliance_deadlines, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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