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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits beyond the name: the tool is read-only and the data is superseded. It says nothing about the shape of the payload, whether numbers are point-in-time or range-scoped, or any staleness of the legacy data.

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 zero filler, and the deprecation notice is front-loaded in a parenthetical right after the purpose. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers routing and safety adequately, but the return content remains opaque — 'overview numbers' could be counts, rates, or per-agent rows. A brief note on what is returned would close the only real 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; the schema is an empty object and the description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-account call. Nothing is left ambiguous about inputs.

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 identifies the resource ('overview numbers of all agents') and its legacy status, and explicitly names get_analytics_agents as the current replacement. The verb is a generic 'get' and 'overview numbers' is never itemized, so an agent knows the category but not the specific metrics returned.

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?

'Superseded by get_analytics_agents' is an explicit routing signal telling the agent to prefer the sibling. It does not state the positive case — e.g. when reaching for legacy numbers is still legitimate (historical parity, old dashboards) — so the guidance is clear but one-sided.

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