Check versions for end of life

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

Annotations already carry readOnly=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond those by disclosing the external data source (endoflife.date), the 'up to 50' cap, the returned status vocabulary, and the 'worst first' ordering behavior. That adds meaningful operational context without contradicting any annotation.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key limit ('up to 50') and immediately gives representative inputs, followed by output fields and ordering. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere) and annotations cover safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: input limits, input format examples, external source, and sort order. The only gap is usage routing among siblings, but that affects selection more than invocation, so the tool itself is adequately described.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the 'items' parameter, and it does by giving five concrete examples of product-version pairs (python 3.8, node@18, postgres:13, ubuntu 20.04, django 4.2). This conveys both the value type and the variety of accepted formats, though it stops short of an explicit grammar, so it is not a full 5.

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 names a specific verb ('Checks') and a precise resource ('product version pairs against endoflife.date'), and lists the concrete outputs (status, EOL date, days left, patch, upgrade target). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like product_lifecycle, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools check_project or product_lifecycle. There is no stated 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' condition; the only implicit signal is the batch-oriented wording 'up to 50', which is weaker than a clear routing instruction.

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