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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Disclosing deprecation is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about what happens on invocation (error, silent redirect, or normal execution) or whether the result is still valid.

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 short sentence with the deprecation tag front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and the redirect is the first thing the agent reads.

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 redirect stub, the minimal description is arguably sufficient to steer the agent away, but it omits what the tool did, why it is deprecated, and what the two parameters mean, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 0% and the description mentions neither 'task_id' nor 'mode'. An agent gets no explanation of what a task id is here, nor what the default '4stems' mode means for a deprecated endpoint.

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 never states what the tool does — only that it is deprecated and points at a replacement. The name 'check_separation_status' implies a status check, but the description adds no verb+resource statement of its own, leaving purpose inferable only from the tool name.

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 explicitly routes the agent away from this tool and names the correct alternative ('Use check_task_status instead'), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs. It stops short of explaining why it is deprecated or whether calls still succeed, so it is clear context without full rationale.

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