ScoutWyze FIPS: certificates sunsetting soon

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool is free and implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not state authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether results include already-expired certificates.

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?

The description is two short clauses, front-loads the operation and scope, and contains no wasted language. The one-word pricing note is useful context rather than padding.

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 optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the default window, and the 'free' trait. It could be more complete by clarifying what 'covered' means and how results are ordered, but nothing essential for invocation 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%, and the input schema already documents the single 'within' parameter with its range and default of 180. The description repeats the default but adds no additional formatting or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it lists covered product versions whose FIPS certificates sunset within a given day window. This clearly separates it in spirit from a general product list, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like fips_list_products.

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 context is clear enough: use it when you need to find certificates sunsetting soon. However, the description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to alternatives such as fips_list_products for full inventory or fips_lookup for a specific certificate.

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