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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context—deprecation status and behavioral equivalence to another tool—without contradicting anything, though it says nothing about persistence scope or side effects on existing facts.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the tool and the routing instruction, with zero redundant restatement of the schema.

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 deprecated alias with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to decide whether to call it. It could add what happens if both tools are used in one session, but nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: brand, content and category are all documented in the schema with examples and fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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 identifies the tool precisely as a legacy alias of remember_brand_fact and states it behaves identically, which lets an agent place it relative to a named sibling. The only shortfall is that the actual operation (saving brand knowledge) is only inferable from the schema, not stated in prose.

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 an explicit prohibition ('Do not use unless remember_brand_fact is unavailable') and an explicit condition under which it exists (older cached tool lists). That is a textbook when-not-to-use plus named alternative.

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