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

The description adds information the annotations do not carry — cost ('Free') and side-effect profile ('reads nothing') — on top of readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. There is mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, since 'reads nothing' implies a no-op rather than a write, but the description does not affirmatively claim read behavior, so this is not a contradiction.

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?

Three terse clauses, front-loaded with 'Retired.' so the deprecation is the first thing read, followed by the redirect and the cost note. No sentence is wasted.

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 zero-complexity retired tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: that it is unavailable, what to call instead, and that calling it costs nothing. Nothing actionable is missing.

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% and the description offers no meaning for 'url' or 'skip'. Normally this would be a hard gap, but the parameters are moot for a retired tool; the deficit is mitigated by the fact that no agent should invoke it with any arguments.

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 plainly that the tool is retired and names the replacement path (funnel_check + routines/convert.md). An agent can immediately tell this tool should not be selected, which is the only purpose clarity that matters for a deprecated entry. It stops short of a 5 because it never says what the tool originally did, so the two schema parameters remain semantically orphaned.

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 gives an explicit when-not (do not use this) and an explicit alternative (call funnel_check and follow routines/convert.md / /shipfound:convert). Nothing is left to inference about routing.

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