Products running out of support

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the ordering guarantee ('soonest first') and the look-ahead scoping, but says nothing about permissions, dataset coverage, pagination interaction, or whether the default excludes already-ended versions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the selection criterion and sort order, and zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is close to adequate: it conveys scope and ordering. It stops short of describing what a returned entry contains (version, end date, category), which is the one gap an agent would want filled in the absence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, months, category, includeAlreadyEnded) are already documented with defaults and ranges. The description only echoes the 'N months' window and does not add semantics for limit, category, or the already-ended toggle. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (SAP product versions) plus the exact selection criterion: end of mainstream maintenance within the next N months. That criterion is distinctive enough to separate it from siblings like pam_search_products, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 by the criterion (reach for this when planning around maintenance expiry), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing against pam_search_products, pam_upgrade_options, or pam_changes.

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