get_product_release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what information is returned (end-of-life dates, support status, patch version) which is helpful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid product/release parameters, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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?

Two concise sentences that each earn their place - the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance with specific examples. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently structured.

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 read-only tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good context about what information is returned. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the structure of returned data. The description compensates well with specific examples of returned information types.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific version/release of a product', with specific examples of what information is retrieved (end-of-life dates, support status, patch version). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_product (which likely gets general product info) by focusing on version-specific details.

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 states 'Use this when you need precise details about one particular version', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also distinguishes from alternatives by specifying this is for 'specific version/release' details rather than general product information available from sibling tools like get_product or list_products.

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