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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one piece of context annotations cannot express, that the endpoint is retired, but it does not say what happens if it is invoked anyway (error, no-op, or success).

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the critical word 'Removed:', with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of stating an actual purpose.

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 retired single-parameter tool, the essential message (do not use; manage destinations in the web app) is present, but the definition omits what a call returns or whether the tool still executes, and points to no sibling 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the single destination_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source (list_destinations). The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at baseline but no better.

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 never states what the tool does; it announces that the tool was removed and redirects the user to the Ticker web app. It effectively negates the name/title rather than clarifying the operation, so an agent cannot tell from the text whether the tool is still callable.

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 does give a routing instruction for where destination management now lives (Settings in the web app), which is actionable. However, it never references the relevant siblings such as update_destination or list_destinations, so the agent gets no tool-level alternative.

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