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. Beyond the rename notice, the description adds no behavioral context: it doesn't say whether calling this alias returns the same payload as get_event_seats, whether it is deprecated-but-working or removed, or how the parameters map to the replacement's view argument.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the actionable instruction (the replacement call) comes first. 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 rename stub, telling the agent the successor call is the essential information, but the description omits whether the alias still works and how this tool's four parameters carry over to the replacement's view argument. No output schema exists, so return-value omission is acceptable.

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% and the four parameters (at, limit, all_in, event_id) are thoroughly documented in the schema, including interactions like all_in not being served with at. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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 does not state what this tool does in its own right; it only says it has been renamed and points to get_event_seats with view "live". The redirect is informative and distinguishes it from siblings like get_event_seats_recent or get_event_seats_history, but the purpose is conveyed indirectly via the replacement rather than directly.

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?

"use get_event_seats with view 'live'" explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it, which is exactly what an agent needs to route correctly. It stops short of a 5 because it never states whether this alias still functions, errors out, or should never be called.

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