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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing behavioral: it does not say whether calls to this alias still succeed, whether it is deprecated or will be removed, or whether it errors. 'Renamed' implies a working alias but leaves the agent guessing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler — the alternative tool is stated immediately. It is perhaps too terse for the amount of behavioral uncertainty it leaves, but nothing 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 three-parameter read tool with annotations, the mechanical information is available elsewhere. What is missing is the one thing only the description can supply: whether this alias still functions, whether it is deprecated, and what happens to the caller if they use it instead of get_event_analytics.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself is unusually detailed (range enum with default and boundedness, event_id format and legacy-id expiry, columns semantics). The description's 'with range' adds nothing beyond that, so the 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 the tool does — it only announces a rename to get_event_analytics. An agent cannot infer from it that this retrieves historical event analytics rows; the title is the only hint at the resource. It does, however, distinguish itself from get_event_analytics by marking itself as the superseded name.

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 names a specific alternative (get_event_analytics) plus the condition that selects it ('with range'), which is exactly the routing an agent needs. It stops short of stating when this tool itself should still be used, or whether it should never be used at all.

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