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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the tool is deprecated, no longer refreshed, and will be removed by a specific date. This is valuable context about the tool's reliability and lifespan. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences with no waste. The deprecation warning is front-loaded, followed by the functional summary. 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?

The description gives a high-level purpose but lacks detail on the structure of the claims array items (package and api) and the compatibility object fields, and does not describe the output. Given the nested schema and no output schema, more context would be helpful, though the deprecation status lowers the priority.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'claims' are package/API questions (limited to four) and that 'compatibility' is an optional runtime compatibility check. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though inner field details (e.g., what 'api' or 'runtime' mean) are not elaborated.

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 states a specific action ('Resolve up to four package/API questions and an optional runtime compatibility check') with a clear resource. It also names alternatives (discover_daystruct_capabilities, compat_check) and explicitly flags deprecation, which distinguishes it from sibling tools. Despite the title being generic, the description provides a precise purpose.

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 explicitly says 'For building, use discover_daystruct_capabilities and compat_check', clearly indicating when NOT to use this tool and directing to alternatives. The deprecation notice further implies it should generally be avoided, giving strong usage guidance.

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