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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral — no mention of deprecation behavior, whether the call still succeeds, or what it returns.

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?

One short sentence with zero waste and the actionable instruction front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than padded.

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 deprecated alias the migration note is the essential content and it is present, but the description omits whether the tool still works, whether it errors, and what a caller gets if invoked anyway. With no output schema, that leaves real ambiguity.

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% for the single event_id parameter, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 or what it returns; it only announces a rename. An agent learns nothing about seller-concentration semantics from the text itself, and must infer the purpose from the title alone.

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 routes the caller to the replacement, get_event_sellers, and even names the required view value ("now"). That is a concrete alternative plus condition, though it never says whether this tool still functions or when a caller could legitimately invoke it.

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