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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by flagging the tool as deprecated and explaining it is only a wrapper, which tells the agent not to rely on it.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler: one announces deprecation, the other names the preferred alternative. Every word earns its place, and the most important guidance is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter deprecated wrapper with read-only and idempotent annotations, an output schema, and a named successor, the description covers everything an agent needs to make the correct call: recognize deprecation and use list_destinations instead.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description needs no additional parameter-level explanation.

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 title 'List Garmin accounts' identifies the resource and operation, and the description clarifies it is a 'deprecated wrapper around list_destinations', linking it to the real behavior. It does not restate the name and gives enough context to distinguish it from siblings, though it relies partly on list_destinations 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?

The description explicitly says 'Prefer list_destinations', naming the alternative tool and telling the agent which sibling to use instead. This is direct, unambiguous routing guidance for a deprecated tool.

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