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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful context that the tool is superseded, but says nothing about whether it still functions, whether it is an alias with identical results, or whether it will be removed.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the decisive word "Renamed" so the agent knows immediately this is a redirect.

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 legacy stub with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing an agent needs: where to go instead and how to call the replacement. It omits any statement about this tool's continued behavior, which is the only remaining gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six filters (name, limit, state, country, capacity_min/max) with examples and defaults. The description adds only the venue_name/name mapping hint, which is marginal; baseline 3 applies.

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 find_venue does; it only announces a rename and names the successor tool. An agent can infer the resource (venues) from the target parameters, but the tool's actual purpose is left implicit rather than stated as a verb+resource.

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 routes the agent to get_venue_schedule and even specifies the required view ("venues") and field (venue_name), which is unusually actionable. It stops short of saying whether this tool should never be called or only as a fallback, and the venue_name/name field naming differs from this schema's own 'name' parameter.

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