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

No annotations provided. The description only says it is an alias, implying identical behavior to get_content but discloses nothing about that behavior (e.g. read-only or destructive). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, the description should at least hint at whether it isa read or mutation operation. Here it does not, so transparency is minimal.

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?

Exactly one sentence with no filler. All information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place. Perfectly concise for an alias definition.

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?

Given the simplicity (alias tool with 2 parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient for its purpose: it tells the agent to use get_content instead. It relies on get_content’s description for full details, which is acceptable for an alias. Minor deduction: if get_content description is poore, completeness suffers, but evaluating this tool alone it is complete enough.

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?

The input schema has 50% description coverage (only id’s description exist). The description adds zero additional meaning about parameters – it does not explain type’s enum values or id’s usage beyond what schema already states. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an alias of get_content, using specific language ('Alias of get_content'). It distinguishes purpose from siblings by naming the preferred tool, though it does not describe what get_content does. The purpose is clear for an alias but relies on sibling tool description for full meaning.

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 states 'Prefer get_content', giving direct guidance on when to use this tool vs. the alternative. The agent knows this tool is only for backwards compatibility. No other exclusions needed.

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