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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: no API key is needed and the response is cached for 15 minutes, which matters for staleness expectations. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, hence not a 5.

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?

Two short clauses, zero filler. The identity/compatibility statement is front-loaded and the payload plus caching detail follow immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does: verified members, 7-day leads, monthly prices and confirmed savings, plus auth and cache behavior. Only the shape/format of the response (fields, pagination) is unspecified, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on parameters and instead describes the fixed payload.

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 precisely what the tool is – the legacy alias of commercebook_network_now – and immediately after what it returns (verified members, recent leads, prices, savings). The sibling relationship is explicit, so an agent can tell it apart from commercebook_network_now without opening either schema.

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?

"Kept so agents that call it keep working" tells the agent this exists for backwards compatibility, which implicitly routes new usage to commercebook_network_now. It stops short of an explicit "prefer the new name for new code" instruction, so a small inference is left to the agent.

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