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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful equivalence context ('same scan, same input, same result'), but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or deprecation/removal timing.

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, zero waste, front-loaded with identity, then equivalence, then the routing directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema that carries return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select correctly. It could be marginally stronger by noting whether the alias will be removed, but that is a minor gap.

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% and both parameters (url, fresh) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'same input' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states exactly what this tool is – an older alias of ship_check with identical behavior – and thereby distinguishes it from its sibling without opening either schema. It does not directly describe the underlying operation (scanning a deployed URL for leaks), but 'Same scan, same input, same result' conveys it by reference to a named sibling.

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 routing directive: 'Prefer ship_check.' Combined with 'kept for existing callers,' the agent knows both when this tool is appropriate (legacy callers only) and when to choose the alternative instead. Nothing is left to inference.

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