Get release cycles

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: result ordering ('newest first') and the fact that status and days-remaining are computed relative to a supplied evaluation date, which tells the agent the output is time-sensitive even though the resource is static.

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?

One front-loaded sentence: verb and resource first, then the returned field list. Every clause names a concrete output field or ordering rule; nothing is wasted or restated from the title.

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, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating release date, LTS flag, both support end dates, computed status, days remaining, and latest patch. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for unknown products and the up-to-500 limit ceiling, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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%, with the date, limit and product parameters each documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the 'newest first' ordering that implicitly ties limit to recency; it adds nothing about product id resolution or limit interaction beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns every release cycle of a product') and enumerates exactly what comes back, so an agent knows precisely what this fetches. It never names or differentiates itself from the related sibling check_version, so the agent must infer which one answers a support-status question.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no reference to the alternatives in the sibling list (check_version, scan_project). Usage is only implied by the resource being fetched and by the 'newest first' ordering, which is enough to make the basic case clear but leaves the check_version boundary unresolved.

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