Check a version

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, spelling out exactly what computed values come back and that arbitrary version notations are normalized. It stays silent on failure behavior for unknown products/versions and on any auth or rate constraints.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, with return fields and input tolerance following in priority order. The trailing example list is long but each item demonstrates a distinct notation family, so it earns most of its space.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation hints about returns, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields. The remaining gap is discoverability: nothing tells the agent that `product` values come from list_products, nor what happens when a product or version is unrecognized.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends the schema: it adds `v18.19.0`-style prefixes, `net472`, `4.8`, and `lts/hydrogen` codenames that the schema's own examples do not cover, telling the agent normalization is tolerant. The `product` and `date` parameters get no description-level treatment, keeping it below 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?

Specific verb + resource ('Checks one product version') plus a precise enumeration of the result fields (support status, end dates, days remaining/overdue, latest patch, newest cycle, recommended upgrade). The singular 'one product version' scope counters scan_project and get_cycles by implication, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is clearly a point-lookup check, and the accepted-input list signals real-world version strings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to list_products for discovering valid product ids, so an agent must infer routing from the sibling names.

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