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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention that a key is required and that end dates 'including any already past' are included, which adds some context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects. For a tool likely performing a read operation, the lack of explicit safety guarantees is a significant gap.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state the core purpose and a necessary requirement. There is no redundant fluff, and the sentences are front-loaded. However, the phrasing is slightly awkward and could be more structured, but overall it is appropriately short and efficient.

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?

This is a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, leaving the description as the sole source of context. The description does not explain what the response contains, how the tool behaves with various inputs, or what 'dependency set' means in practice. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema defines a single parameter 'names' (array of strings), but the description does not mention this parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description offers no clarity on what 'names' refers to (e.g., dependency names, runtime names) or how to format them. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of semantic meaning.

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 indicates the tool deals with end dates for runtimes required by a dependency set, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other aspects. However, the verb 'Support' is vague; it does not clearly state whether the tool returns, lists, or checks these dates. The resource is identifiable, but the action is ambiguous.

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 mentions a prerequisite (requires a key) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools. There is no context about typical use cases, exclusions, or when another tool would be more appropriate. Only the authentication requirement is stated.

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