check_eol

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

No annotations provided. Description lists return values (lifecycle status, EOL date, days remaining, latest release) and indicates it's a read-only query. Does not disclose authentication requirements or rate limits, but sufficient for a simple check tool.

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 sentences: first states purpose and outputs, second gives clear usage example. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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?

No output schema, but description enumerates return values. Covers all necessary information for an agent to understand input, action, and expected output.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (product and version), including examples. Description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what schema provides, meeting baseline expectation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks EOL status for a specific product version, with verb 'check' and resource 'version of a software product'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_products and get_product_lifecycle by focusing on a single version's EOL status.

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?

Includes explicit usage example ('Use this for "is X version Y still supported?" questions') and context of when to use. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but sibling tool list provides implicit differentiation.

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