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 structurally. The description adds the rename fact but says nothing about whether invoking it aliases the new tool, fails, or returns a deprecation error. It neither contradicts the annotations nor enriches them much beyond the routing note.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the essential fact (renamed) and the destination tool plus arguments. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 renamed/deprecated alias, the most important missing context is whether the tool still works and what happens on invocation; the description omits this. It does supply the replacement target and exact columns, which is the essential routing info, but an agent cannot tell if calling it is safe or futile.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents event_id ('The event to read.'). The description adds no parameter meaning, which lands at the baseline for a fully-covered single-param schema.

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 and points at a replacement. The name suggests 'sale windows' but the text supplies no verb+resource statement of behavior. It is closer to a redirect stub than a purpose statement, though it does distinguish itself from siblings by declaring itself superseded.

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 names the alternative (get_event_analytics) and even the exact columns to request (["presales","onsale"]), which is actionable routing. However it never says whether this tool still functions, returns an error, or should be avoided entirely, leaving the 'when to use this vs. that' question half-answered.

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