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 structurally. The description's one behavioral contribution is disclosing deprecation/renaming, which is genuinely useful context. It says nothing about pagination, limits, or what a call to the stale name would do.

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 short sentence that front-loads the critical fact (renamed) and immediately names the replacement and its argument. There is no filler whatsoever.

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 deprecation/redirect stub, the essential information an agent needs — don't use this, use that instead with this argument — is present. It would be marginally better if it stated whether the old name still resolves, but nothing critical 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 100%, so all six parameters (limit, width, cursor, section, event_id, occurrence) are already documented in the schema, including the non-obvious width and occurrence semantics. The description adds no parameter detail at all, 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 this tool does or returns; it only announces that it was renamed. An agent can infer it was once about GA history from the name, but the text itself provides no verb+resource statement. It does, however, distinguish itself as a dead end relative to siblings.

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 redirects to a named sibling (get_event_sections_live) and even supplies the selecting parameter (view "ga"), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs. It stops short of saying whether this tool still works or what happens if called.

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