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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it does flag deprecation and sketch the return shape (health, default line bound as `bound`), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, so coverage is partial.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, and the most important fact (deprecation) is front-loaded. Nothing superfluous to cut.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by sketching the return content. Deprecation and the aliased sibling are both covered, so an agent has what it needs to decide whether to call this.

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?

One parameter (workspaceId) at 0% schema description coverage; the description adds no semantics for it. Since the parameter is a self-evident UUID with an obvious name, a baseline 3 is appropriate rather than a penalized score.

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 names the resource (offered routes, with health) and explicitly ties itself to its sibling lines.list, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It is not a pure verb+resource statement but the aliasing relationship is more useful than a generic 'list routes' phrasing.

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?

Stating 'Deprecated alias of lines.list' effectively routes the agent away from this tool toward lines.list, which is the key usage decision. It stops short of an explicit 'use lines.list instead' imperative, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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