List IT Glue Expirations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what types of items are tracked and the pagination behavior, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage context, parameter summary, and return information. However, the Args section is somewhat redundant given the comprehensive schema documentation. The description could be more concise by focusing only on value-added information beyond the schema.

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 listing tool with comprehensive annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the tool's purpose, gives usage examples, summarizes parameters, and describes the return format. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by stating the return format options and what's returned.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, defaults, and constraints. The description's Args section mostly repeats schema information, adding minimal value. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('upcoming expirations across all resource types'), providing specific examples of what types of items are tracked (warranties, SSL certificates, domain renewals). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on expiration tracking rather than general listing or CRUD operations on specific resource types.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Useful for tracking warranties, SSL certificates, domain renewals, and other time-sensitive items'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The context is helpful but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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