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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description reinforces this with a domain-specific consequence ('never changes which roles GetMattered hunts for') and discloses the exact parameter equivalence to the canonical tool, which annotations cannot express. It does not say whether/when the alias will be removed, a minor remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, with the deprecation and replacement instruction front-loaded before any behavioral detail. Nothing is padded or repeated beyond the deliberate reinforcement of the redirect.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Deprecation status, replacement tool, parameter mapping and read-only guarantee together give an agent everything needed to call or avoid this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions and examples on all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description maps job_title/location/remote_only to the sibling's query/location/remote_only, which is useful context but slightly imprecise (the sibling's parameter is called 'query', not the name used here).

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?

States precisely what the tool is (a deprecated alias of getmattered_get_matches) and what it returns (matched jobs filtered by title, location, remote). The sibling relationship is named outright, so an agent can distinguish it from get_matches without reading either schema.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use getmattered_get_matches instead, twice, in the opening sentence. There is no ambiguity about when to prefer the canonical tool over this alias.

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