get_supervisor_upgrade_risk

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

The description goes well past the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing that the vLCM/VUM schema is unmeasured, that no database script runs, and that the tool cannot grant upgrade clearance. It also names the returned signals (advisory_applicability, supervisor_presence, next_step). Only minor gaps remain, such as how the advisory scope is determined.

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?

Content is front-loaded: the scope line first, then read behavior, then the safety caveat. Sentences are dense but each carries a distinct constraint; the bolded emphasis and bracketed [READ] tag are slightly noisy but not 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 compensates by naming the three return fields and framing the interpretation limit (no clearance granted). For a two-parameter read-only advisory tool this is close to complete; a clearer statement of what 'advisory_applicability' values mean would close the last gap.

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 both parameters (target and target_version, including the 9.1.0/9.1.1 constraint) are already documented. The description's mention of reading the source version/build implies what target_version affects but adds no new syntax, defaulting, or precedence detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: check the Supervisor pre-upgrade advisory for vCenter 9.1.0/9.1.1. It also states what it reads (source version/build plus Supervisor inventory). It does not name a distinguishing sibling such as check_vks_compatibility or get_supervisor_status, so the boundary with those is left to inference.

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?

"Use the official checker in Broadcom KB 455737 or VDT before upgrading an affected environment" gives explicit routing to an external alternative, and "this tool never grants upgrade clearance" is a strong when-not statement. It lacks guidance on when to prefer it over in-server siblings like get_supervisor_status, so it stops short of full exclusion coverage.

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