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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context at all — no note on whether the tool still works, what it returns, or how the redirect interacts with existing callers.

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?

Eight words, front-loaded with the most important fact for an agent (this tool is superseded). It is genuinely concise rather than padded, but the terseness borders on under-specification given it is the entire documentation for a live three-parameter tool.

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 tool that still appears in the active tool list with a required performer_id and two optional behavior-altering parameters, the description omits whether calls still succeed, what a rendered vs. data-only response contains, and what happens to existing integrations. The routing hint is present but the definition is not complete enough to invoke the tool knowingly.

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 the schema already documents performer_id, range (with its enum and default), and render. The phrase 'with range' adds only a hint that the range parameter carries over to the replacement, which is marginal value over the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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; it only announces that the tool was renamed and points elsewhere. The name suggests a performer rank chart, but the text itself conveys no verb+resource purpose and gives no distinguishing detail versus siblings like get_performer_chart or get_performer_analytics.

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 an alternative ('use get_performer_analytics with range'), which is the single most useful instruction an agent could get for a superseded tool. It stops short of a 5 because it never states when, if ever, calling this tool itself is still appropriate, nor whether it remains functional.

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