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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: the tool has been renamed and superseded. It says nothing about whether calls still succeed, error, or return stale data, so the disclosure is thin.

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; every word (rename, replacement tool, view value) is load-bearing and the agent gets the redirect immediately.

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 four-parameter tool with a full schema still exposed, the description omits key migration context: whether the tool remains callable, and how its parameters map to get_event_sellers view="market". No output schema exists, so return values need not be covered, but the unresolved replacement mapping leaves a 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 event_id, sellers, range, and section_ids are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter syntax or constraints. It also does not explain whether these same parameters carry over to get_event_sellers with view "market", which is the migration detail an agent actually needs. 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 never states what the tool does (read seller market series for an event); it only announces a rename and points to a replacement. The replacement name plus view "market" hints at the resource, but the agent must infer the actual purpose from the tool name and sibling get_event_sellers. It is a routing note, not a purpose statement.

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 tool to use instead, which is the strongest possible alternative guidance. However, it does not say whether this tool still functions, when it will be removed, or what condition (other than always) selects the alternative, leaving a small ambiguity about calling it.

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