Is a runtime this repo supports going end-of-life?

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by explicitly stating 'Read-only — never writes to .rrt/health.lock.toml' and by explaining the fetch_live behavior with endoflife.date versus the bundled snapshot. This adds meaningful behavioral detail without contradicting the 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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then provide usage timing, a safety guarantee, and a mode switch. Every sentence adds information without repeating schema or annotations.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, safety, and fetch_live. However, the missing semantics for 'language' and the lack of any mention of alternatives leave small but real gaps for correct invocation and sibling selection.

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 carries the burden of parameter explanation. It defines fetch_live clearly, but the 'language' parameter is left unexplained; an agent must guess whether it refers to the host runtime language, project language, or something else. This partial compensation is insufficient.

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?

States a specific action: 'Check the host runtime and project minimum versions against EOL policy.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling validation/health tools by focusing on EOL policy and version minimums. The title reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before raising or lowering a minimum supported version, and when deciding whether to drop a version from a CI matrix,' giving concrete decision contexts. It does not list exclusions or alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear enough to route an agent.

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