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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key lifecycle behavior — deprecated, still functional, slated for removal — plus that behavior/params are identical to `relationships`. It does not describe return format, pagination, or read-vs-write semantics, but the deprecation and equivalence disclosures are the traits an agent actually needs here.

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 first sentence front-loads the actionable routing information, which is good. However, the operator-ruling rationale about billing units vs. capability naming is background justification that does not help an agent invoke the tool, making the description longer than its functional payload warrants.

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 deprecated alias with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the agent everything needed to act: don't use it, use `relationships`, behavior is identical. It does not stand alone as documentation, but standing alone is not required when it correctly redirects to the canonical tool.

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 0% across 6 parameters, and the description only gestures at `hops` (traversal depth is what gets metered). It defers all other parameter meaning to `relationships`, leaving `limit`, `entity`, `offset`, `search`, and `relation_type` undocumented in both schema and description.

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 exactly what the tool is — a deprecated alias for `relationships` with identical behavior and params — and names the sibling it duplicates. An agent can immediately tell it apart from `relationships` and knows not to treat it as a distinct capability.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use `relationships`' and explains the tool is 'kept working, to be removed at a future major.' The when-to-use (never, prefer the sibling) and the migration path are both spelled out with no inference required.

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