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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the tool is deprecated, both interfaces hit the same Strategy records, and results include publication status. It doesn't discuss scope limits or pagination, which keeps it short of a 5 for a list operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (deprecation and replacement) before the functional description, which is the right ordering. Slight redundancy: "Both interfaces access the same Strategy records" largely restates the replacement clause, costing a sentence that could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in prose, and the tool has no parameters to document. For a simple zero-argument list operation, the description covers purpose, deprecation status, replacement path, record equivalence, and a hint at result content — nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The mention of organisation-scoped access and publication status usefully frames what the implicit (unparameterised) result set contains.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Lists the strategies you can access in the connected organisation") and immediately flags the tool as a deprecated compatibility interface. It also names the exact replacement call ("search with category: \"strategy\""), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_strategy or list_innovations without opening a 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 gives both the when-not ("Deprecated... the replacement is search with category: \"strategy\"") and the when-still ("Retained for existing clients during migration"). An agent knows to prefer search for new work and only fall back here for legacy compatibility, with the equivalence of the two stated.

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