Check API/SDK deprecation status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the main behavior: returns a status of active/deprecated/sunset, covers a specific provider set, and has a defined fallback ('unknown') for untracked entries. This gives users a realistic expectation of tool coverage and output. It stops short of discussing potential errors or data freshness, but for a lookup tool this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise, using just two sentences to convey the core function, scope, and fallback behavior. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, this description adequately covers the essential aspects: what it does, which providers it covers, and what it returns for untracked providers. It lacks detail on the meaning of each status or any potential limitations, but the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already has 100% descriptive coverage for both parameters (provider, target), including examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides, so it does not exceed the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('look up'), resource ('provider's API or SDK'), and the possible outcomes (active, deprecated, sunset). It also explicitly lists covered providers, which adds scope clarity and distinguishes it from potential sibling tools.

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 description provides clear context on when to use the tool by specifying the curated provider list and noting that untracked providers return 'unknown'. It implicitly indicates this should be used for deprecation checks on those providers, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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