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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful operational context by marking the tool as renamed/deprecated, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits.

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?

The entire description is one short sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the deprecation/redirect status, which is the only actionable information an agent needs.

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?

The description is complete for routing an agent away from this deprecated alias, but it does not explain what the tool returns or how it behaves if called. With no output schema, a fuller description would normally be expected, though the rich input schema and annotations reduce the practical 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 all four parameters are fully documented in the schema, including detailed notes about bucket price approximation. The description adds no parameter meaning for this tool and merely refers to a parameter on the replacement tool, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool itself does; it only says it has been renamed. The replacement tool and view name imply the original purpose (event section series) but this is inferred from the name and sibling, not explicitly stated. It is a vague purpose statement rather than a specific verb+resource description.

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 replacement tool and the exact view parameter to use instead: get_event_sections_live with view "series". An agent is given an unambiguous instruction, which is the correct guidance for a deprecated alias.

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