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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them — that this is a renamed/legacy entry point — but says nothing about whether calls still return data or are redirected.

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 sentence with zero waste, and the redirect (the most actionable information) is front-loaded.

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 alias with only two fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the redirect is the essential content and it is present. Missing only whether the tool remains callable and whether its parameters match the replacement's.

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 both `at` and `event_id` are already documented with format and defaults. The description adds only the mapping of the view name "at", which is marginal; 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 a verb+resource for this tool itself; it only points at get_event_sections_live with view "at". From that an agent can infer this reads event sections at an instant, but the purpose is conveyed indirectly through the redirect rather than stated.

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 tool and the exact configuration to use instead (view "at"), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of saying whether this tool still works, is deprecated-but-functional, or will be removed.

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