list_software_lifecycle_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds useful content-level context by listing the fields each report exposes, but says nothing about default result size behavior (the 25 limit only appears in the schema), ordering, or whether results include products with no lifecycle data.

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 em-dash sentence that front-loads the resource and follows with the payload contents, with no filler. Slightly compressed to the point of being a fragment, but nothing wasteful.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to judge relevance. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the sibling lifecycle tools, which matters given how many similar listing tools exist in this server.

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 filters (limit, product, publisher, current_phase) are already documented with examples. The description adds no filter semantics or interactions (e.g. whether filters are ANDed, or valid phase values), so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('software lifecycle reports'), then enumerates what each report contains (EOL/EOS phase, install count, CVE exposure), which is more informative than the name alone. However it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling list_software_lifecycle_entries or get_software_lifecycle_report, leaving an agent to guess which to pick.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, even though list_software_lifecycle_entries and get_software_lifecycle_report sit in the same sibling set and would plausibly be confused with this tool. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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