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 The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations — that this tool is deprecated/superseded — but says nothing about return contents or failure behavior.

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, front-loaded with the essential instruction and zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a deprecated alias, though it is terse to the point of saying nothing about the tool's actual behavior.

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For a superseded tool, telling the agent where to go is arguably the minimum viable content, and the rich schema covers the parameter. However, it omits whether the tool still works, what it returns, and any error behavior, so an agent lacks the full picture.

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 a single parameter, so the schema carries the semantics, including the notable constraint that destination posting URLs are never returned. The description adds nothing about view_id beyond the schema. 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 what the tool does; it only announces a rename and points elsewhere. The function is inferable only from the tool name and title, not from the description text itself. It is not misleading, but it is a redirect rather than 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 gives the single most important routing instruction an agent needs: use list_views with view_id instead. The alternative is named explicitly. It stops short of 5 because it never says whether this tool still functions or under what conditions it should ever be called.

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