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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Retired' hints at a no-op, but it never discloses what invoking the tool actually does (error, empty result, stale data), which is the key behavioral fact for a deprecated endpoint.

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 short sentences with the key fact ('Retired') front-loaded and no filler. It is terse and the redirect is stated compactly.

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 tool the essential information is whether it can be safely called and what to do instead. It provides a redirect target but does not say what happens on invocation or whether it should be avoided entirely, leaving an agent uncertain.

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%, with both parameters explicitly labeled 'Ignored', so the schema already communicates that they have no effect. The description adds nothing about parameters, but there is nothing meaningful left to add, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 reads as a deprecation notice rather than a statement of function: '[PERSONAL SHOPPER] Retired' plus a redirect to a web page. An agent can infer the tool no longer serves its named purpose, but the cryptic '[PERSONAL SHOPPER]' tag and lack of any description of what the tool once did make the purpose unclear.

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 implies the owner should use the VIA website at https://app.getvia.xyz rather than this tool, which is a weak steer away from calling it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not relative to the many concierge/standing siblings, so an agent still cannot confidently decide.

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