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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds the important redirect behavior (this tool is superseded), which is not in the annotations, but says nothing about this tool's own behavior, errors, or auth.

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?

Single short sentence, front-loaded with the key fact. It is efficient and unambiguous, though terse to the point of omitting any statement of purpose.

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 tool whose job is to redirect, the critical information is present. However, it never states whether the tool still functions or what it returns, and with no output schema an agent gets no confirmation of behavior.

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 there is one required parameter, so the baseline is 4. The description adds a hint that match_id comes from list_matches, which is consistent with the schema and mildly useful, but not beyond structured fields.

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 does. It only says 'Renamed: use list_matches with match_id,' which is a deprecation notice, not a purpose. An agent cannot tell from this text what get_match retrieves or why it existed.

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 agent to list_matches and even names the argument to use (match_id). That is exactly the guidance needed for a deprecated tool: what to use instead and how.

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