List products

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that this is a static snapshot and that ids feed downstream tools, but says nothing about result truncation, ordering, or what a response entry looks like.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The identity of the resource comes first, the payoff (ids for other tools) and filtering behavior follow in a logical reading order.

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 simple read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, this is nearly sufficient; the role of the returned ids is the key missing context and it is supplied. Only the absence of any note on result volume or paging behavior keeps it off a 5, and limit/default are covered in the schema anyway.

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% and each parameter carries a precise description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds that the two filters combine ("and/or"), which is a marginal gain over the schema text.

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?

"Lists the products in the endoflife.date snapshot" gives a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the domain (runtimes, frameworks, databases, operating systems) so the scope is unmistakable. The clause about returning ids "for use in the other tools" positions it distinctly against get_cycles/check_version/scan_project, which all consume those ids.

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 phrase "for use in the other tools" plus "Filter by a search text and/or category" makes the intended discovery-first workflow and narrowing options clear. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it or which sibling to reach for next, so an agent must infer the ordering.

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